Sitting of 1 December 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.
The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have further been complied with, namely:—
  Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire Electricity Bill [Lords].
  Rill to be read a second time.
  Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords] (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

PETITIONS.
  RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to present a humble petition from the board of guardians of Middlesbrough, praying this honourable House not to assent to the Rating and Valuation Bill in its present form.

  VIVISECTION.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to present a humble petition from 3,000 inhabitants of the Borough of
  2012
  Worthing praying this honourable House that the practice of vivisection may be discontinued.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

    SHETLAND KNITTING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any complaints that the Shetland knitting industry is being adversely affected by the competition of machine-made goods of German industry; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If I supply my right hon. Friend with information, will he make inquiries.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If any in formation be submitted to me, I will look into it. The question was whether I had information, and the answer was "No."
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an association for the protection of this industry, and that the best protection they get is by persons asking for woollen goods marked with their trade mark?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sure that that information will be supplied by their representatives.

    GAS MANTLES.
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and the value of the imports and exports of gas mantles for 1913, 1923, 1924, and for the first 10 months of 1925?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer contains a table of figures, which the hon. Member will perhaps allow mo to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say briefly whether the present imports are abnormal?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes; certainly.

    THE VOLUME AND VALUE OF THE TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM IN INCANDESCENT GAS MANTLES IN THE PERIODS SPECIFIED ARE SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT.

    —

    1913.

    1923.

    1924.

    1925. Jan,-Oct.

    (i) Quantities.

    Gross.

    Gross.

    Gross.

    Total Imports

    (a)

    209,858

    165,527

    175,349

    Re-exports

    (a)

    1,917

    855

    553

    Net Imports

    (a)

    207,941

    164,672

    171,796

    United Kingdom Exports

    (a)

    20,201

    23,105

    16,242

    (ii) Declared Value thereof.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Imports

    302,576

    201,323

    160,596

    188,109

    Re-exports

    5,650

    2,982

    1,150

    802

    Net Imports

    296,926

    198,341

    159,440

    187,307

    United Kingdom Exports

    32,566

    49,145

    48,508

    32,739

    (a) Not recorded by quantity in this year.

    NOTE.—Since 1st April, 1923, the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Irish Free State has been included. From the same date the direct foreign trade of the Irish Free State has been excluded.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    THAMES NAVIGATION.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a Peninsular and Oriental steamer took the ground in the Thames Estuary last week, and that shoaling has been in progress in the vicinity of that grounding for a considerable time, owing to continued dumping by hoppers, in spite of the protests which have been made by pilots; and whether he can state what steps, if any, are being taken to remedy this danger to the efficiency of the Port of London?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that a Peninsular and Oriental steamer took the ground in the Duke of Edinburgh Channel on her outward voyage on the 13th November, but sustained no damage. The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the shoaling which has been occurring
    Captain BENN: That is what the Committee does not say.
    Following is the table, promised:
    in this channel, and it has been suggested that this shoaling is due to the deposit of silt and sludge in the authorised deposit area in the Black Deep. The matter has been carefully considered from this aspect, but the evidence at present available affords no ground for attributing the shoaling to these deposits or to causes other than natural. The Edinburgh Channel is known to have undergone in the last century periodical changes of a radical nature. The situation is being carefully watched.
    Mr. ALBERY: May I ask that my right hon. Friend will consider whether the pilots are sufficiently consulted in such matters? They certainly have much practical experience.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. There are consultations on all occasions when questions of this kind arise. There is most careful investigation by Trinity House and the Port of London Authority and ourselves in all these matters.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether favourable consideration is being given to the request by Thames pilots that certain ships of specified dimensions and draught should be authorised to exhibit signals by day and by night, giving them the preferential right of way in narrow channels, with a view to insuring safer navigation for all classes of shipping in the Thames estuary and river; and if he is aware that this practice is already followed successfully on many Continental rivers, including the Scheldt and Elbe?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. No representations on this subject have been made to the Ministry of Transport or the Board of Trade by the Thames pilots, but the Port of London Authority have recently submitted to the Ministry for confirmation a bye-law amending certain of their existing river bye-laws relating to sound signals for vessels. This bye-law will be advertised in the usual manner and will then, with any objections received, be considered by the Ministry in conjunction with the Board of Trade before it is decided whether to confirm the bye-law in its present form. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is the House to understand that the control of pilots and navigation round the coast of England is handed over to the Ministry of Transport?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No. The Port of London Authority is dealt with by the Ministry of Transport, and that is why I am answering the question.

    SEAMEN'S DISPUTE (NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD)
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade what action it is intended to take with regard to the representations of the Government of the Union of South Africa to His Majesty's Government on the recent seamen's dispute, and particularly to the request for an inquiry into the constitution of the National Maritime Board?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No representations either of a general
    2016
    nature or of the particular character indicated have been received by His Majesty's Government from the Government of the Union of South Africa.

    LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES (NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSE COMMISSIONERS).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to see that the life-saving appliances rules are enforced in respect of the sea-going vessels of the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My information is that the lighthouse tenders are well supplied with boats, and I should be reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the responsible officers as to the type of boat best suited for the special work they have to do, but if the hon. Member will be good enough to tell me what is the particular point he has in mind, I will look into it.

    FILM CITY SCHEME. BRIGHTON.
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any facilities are being granted under the Trade Facilities Act in regard to the new film city scheme, for Brighton?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): No application has been made to the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee for a guarantee in connection with this scheme.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a detailed scheme in its fullest aspect has not been submitted to the Board of Trade, under which scheme there will be only English capital used?
    Mr. McNEILL: In my answer I said that no application had been made in connection with it.

    TURKISH PETROLEUM COMPANY.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government have been consulted with regard to the sale of a portion of the shares of the Turkish Petroleum Company to an American company; and what is the attitude of the Government to such sale?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: His Majesty's Government are aware that negotiations have been proceeding for the transfer to an American group of a portion of the shares in the Turkish Petroleum Company, and if such an arrangement were made it would be viewed with satisfaction by His Majesty's Government.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was the right hon. Gentleman kept informed of these negotiations, and is the Government advised of all impending negotiations?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.
    Colonel GRETTON: In connection with the proposals to sell shares was any condition attached to the sale?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: I answered that, I think, the other day, when I gave the share-holding in this company. These shares are not held by the public. They are held by three group-companies and by one individual.
    Sir R. HALL: Is it within my right hon. Friend's knowledge that any proposals were made to alter the allocation of shares and to affect the composition of the company?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If some proportion of the existing holdings were transferred by the existing holders to an American group, that obviously would be an alteration in the proportion of the holding, and each of the groups making the transfer would to the extent of the transfer reduce its present holding.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: How is this going to affect the shale miners in Scotland?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It will not affect them.

    RUSSIA (CONFISCATED OIL).
    Sir NICHOLAS DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any complaints as to the action of the Soviet Government in marketing in this country produce of the confiscated oil products of British subjects for which no compensation has been paid; and whether he intends to take any steps to stop this practice in view of the damage it inflicts upon view of the damage it inflicts upon British industrial interests in other countries?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part I have no power to prohibit the trade in question.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH(1) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give figures showing the total numbers of ordinary and of belated claims presented to the late Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action and to the Reparation Claims Department, indicating separately the numbers of successful and unsuccessful claims and the numbers of ordinary and belated claims still under consideration;
    (2) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give figures showing the total amounts claimed and paid in respect of ordinary and belated claims for compensation for suffering and damage due to enemy action against civilians during the late War?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: 65,644 claims were presented for consideration by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action against the £5,000,000 compensation fund, 45,382 of which were successful, 20,251 unsuccessful and 11 are still under consideration. 29,751 claims have been presented for consideration against the £300,000 fund for belated claimants, of which 24,934 have been successful and 4,285 unsuccessful, leaving 532 still under consideration. In addition, there are some 2,000 cases in which forms have been issued, but not yet returned completed. The total amount of compensations paid out of the £5,000,000 compensation fund is £4,585,539, and out of the £300,000 fund £280,152 5s. 8d. It is not possible to state, even approximately, the total of the amounts claimed since, in a very large number of cases, no amount is specified.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how soon the undistributed balance of £443,394, allocated by the Government for the benefit of those who sustained damage by enemy action will be paid out; is it anticipated there will be any surplus; and, if so, how will it be disposed of?
    Mr. McNEILL: The payment of awards recommended by the Sumner Commission and of grants to belated claimants will be completed as soon as possible. The delay has been due to the difficulty in certain cases in obtaining from claimants the return of forms sent out to them or answers to inquiries addressed to them, and it is not possible to state by what date payments will be finally completed or what, if any, the saving on the original grant will be.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that under no circumstances will any of this sum be raided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the general purposes of the State, but that it will be devoted to claimants?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say what course will be adopted in the next financial year.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to my question? Will he give an undertaking that none of this money which has been voted, and is at the present time unexpended, will be raided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for general purposes?
    Mr. McNEILL: That question had better be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES (IMPORTS).
    Mr. SITCHasked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage and value of anchors and chain cables imported into this country during the first nine months of this year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the nine months ended 30th September last, 394 tons of anchors and grapnels, valued at £6,204, and 214 tons of chain cables, valued at £4,585, were registered as imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland from all sources.

    STEEL MANUFACTURES EXPORTED.
    Mr. SITCHasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total production of steel manufactures in Great Britain is exported, the quantities of the various classes of such
    2020
    manufactures, and the name of the countries concerned?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Pending the completion of the census of production, I am unable to estimate the total production of steel manufactures in the United Kingdom. For particulars of the production of certain classes of steel manufactures. I would refer the hon. Member to the statistics published by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers. Full details of the exports of iron and steel and manufactures thereof in the year 1924 are contained in Volume III of the Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom, which has just been published, and less detailed particulars are published in the monthly trade accounts.

    TERRITORIAL TROOPS (DELAY IN RAILWAY TRANSPORT).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the fact that Territorial troops on returning from camp entrained in Northumberland on 15th August last took over 22 hours to reach Stafford, though their special train was duo 11½ hours earlier; that there was no provision of any sanitary conveniences, and that no food was obtainable either on the train or at any of the stopping places; and what action he has taken to prevent a recurrence of this situation, in view of its damage to Territorial recruiting?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): My attention has already been drawn to this case. The War Office are greatly concerned that Territorial troops should have been subjected to so much discomfort and inconvenience, and they are in communication with the railway company to prevent such an occurrence in future.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Are we to take it that the War Office look upon this purely and solely as a matter of comfort and convenience, and not as a deadly question of efficiency and safety?
    Captain KING: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend will draw that deduction from my answer. I have already expressed the concern of the War Office.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SCHOOL OF DISPENSING.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for War the number of persons attending the Army School for Dispensing annually for instruction in dispensing; and what is the length and duration of each course and the cost per head to the State for this instruction given to each pupil?
    Captain KING: About SO soldiers of the Royal Army Medical Corps attend the Army School of Dispensing annually. The length of the course is three months, preceded by six months' instruction at the dispensary of one of the large central military hospitals. The estimated cost for each student at the school is 1s. 3d. per day.

    PHARMACISTS.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for War how many pharmacists have enlisted in the Army Reserve (Technical); and whether any distinction is drawn between a qualified pharmacist and an unqualified dispenser in this Reserve?
    Captain KING: Eight pharmacists have enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps (Supplementary Reserve) up to the present. Unqualified dispensers are not accepted for enlistment.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any person at the War Office possessing an intimate knowledge of pharmaceutical matters able to advise on the employment of pharmacists in the Army; and, if so, is this adviser a member of the medical or pharmaceutical profession?
    Captain KING: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Does that answer mean that there is a medical representative or a representative of the pharmacists?
    Captain KING: He is, as a matter of fact, a member of the medical profession.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Would it not ensure better and more competent advice if he was a qualified pharmacist?
    Captain KING: That is not the view of the War Office. Of course they have pharmacists and this medical expert who advises.

    AGGRAVATION OF DISABILITY.
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, when a disability alleged to be constitutional showed itself during war service, a soldier receives any consideration, temporary or permanent, for aggravation of such disability; whether, in case a disability is of a permanent character, the War Office decides at any given time and on any fixed lines whether its responsibility for such aggravation has passed away; and, if so, what are the exact grounds upon which this policy is based?
    Captain KING: A disability which first manifests itself during a period of military service is not necessarily a consequence of such service. In cases where the medical authorities find that a constitutional disability has been aggravated or precipitated by the conditions of a man's military service, liability for pension or gratuity is admitted and continues until such time as they are satisfied that the effect of the military service on the disability has passed away. There is no fixed limit for the duration of awards in such cases, each one being dealt with on its individual merits. For information regarding the procedure and practice in Great War cases, I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should address his question to the Minister of Pensions.

    CORPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS
    Mr. PIELOUasked the Secretary of State for War why, on the disbandment of the Corps of Military Accountants, men enlisted on a 21 years' engagement are being discharged with 28 days' leave with pay and the equivalent of seven days' pay for each unexpired year of service?
    Captain KING: Men of the Corps of Military Accountants serving on a 21 years' engagement are granted a pension, on being discharged on reduction, if they have 14 years' total service and 10 years' qualifying service. Those who have less than 14 years' service receive compensa-

    2023
    tion on the same lines as men whose engagement is for seven years or 12 years with the colours.
    Mr. PIELOU: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider it a breach of contract, in view of the fact that these men were enlisted on a 21 years' engagement?
    Captain KING: No man signs on in his original engagement for 21 years. Men sign on for seven years with the colours and five with the Reserve, and I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the engagement of every soldier on attestation states that it is subject to his services being required for the full term.
    Mr. PIELOU: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman observed the answer given by the Secretary of State for War in the last Government, stating that the amalgamation of the Royal Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Military Accountants would take place on the recommendation of the Lawrence Committee?
    Captain KING: I do not follow the question. I have not knowledge of the answers given by members of the late Government.

    MILITIA (RE-ESTABLISHMENT).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can say when the establishment of the Militia is to be restored, and the estimated cost of re-establishment on a single battalion basis?
    Captain KING: There is no present intention of reconstituting the Militia infantry battalions. The answer to the second part of the question would depend on a large number of assumptions as to establishment, training and other matters, and I cannot usefully give any estimate at the present time.
    Colonel APPLIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is the only military force sanctioned permanently by the people of this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the War Office considering the question of re-establishing the Militia?
    Captain KING: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which I have already given.
    Colonel APPLINasked the Secretary of State for War how the sum of £1,000,000 sterling, voted in the 1922 Estimates for the Militia, was spent and, if still unexpended, how it is proposed to use it?
    Captain KING: Of the £1,000,000 included in Army Estimates for 1922–23 for the Militia, only £9,603 was spent, representing, mainly, gratuities payable under Regulation to officers of the old Militia. The formation of the new Militia was not proceeded with in that year. The balance unspent was duly surrendered to the Exchequer, with other unexpended balances, at the end of the financial year.

    KADAVER FACTORIES.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, subsequent to the War, any evidence has come into the possession of the War Office, or to the knowledge of the Cabinet, showing the Kadaver story to be false?
    Captain KING: I have nothing to add to the information which my right hon. Friend gave on the 24th November in replying to questions on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
    Captain BENN: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that on this day of all days it would be more generous to say frankly that there is nothing in the story?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the War Office considered the necessity of making some further inquiries into this matter and clearing it up one way or the other; and is ft not due to a people with whom we are now mating friends, to acquit them of this charge if it is unfounded?
    Hon. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A Minister is not obliged to answer a supplementary question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect, may I raise a point of Order? I put a similar question last week, and I was not able to get certain information in spite of a great deal of pressing. I have now asked what I think

    2025
    you, Sir, will admit to be a perfectly proper question, and surely we should be given the assurance that the matter will be taken into consideration.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member, if he puts a question on the Paper, is entitled to an answer. No hon. Member is entitled to an answer to a supplementary question.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: May I respectfully point out that I have had no answer to the question on the Paper?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member fails to distinguish between an answer and a satisfactory answer.

  SCOTLAND.

    TUBERCULOSIS (ELGIN TOWN COUNCIL).
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a Report from the Moray County Council relating to the failure of negotiations with the Elgin Town Council in connection with the finding of accommodation for advanced oases of tuberculosis within the county; and, if so, what steps does he now propose to take to alleviate the present situation?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The Scottish Board of Health have been informed by the county council of the failure of the negotiations referred to in the question. The proposal to which Elgin Town Council have declined to assent was to provide a tuberculosis pavilion on ground belonging to Elgin Town Council adjoining the site of the infectious diseases hospital owned jointly by the town and county councils. The Board regard this proposal as the only immediately practicable solution, and they are again so informing the local authorities.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to use all his influence to expedite this matter in the interests of the patients?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I am most anxious to do what I can.

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING, BARRA.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his
    2026
    attention has been drawn to the prevalence of illegal trawling near the island of Barra; and whether he will take whatever steps are possible to prevent this practice?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Three local complaints of illegal trawling off Barra have recently been received by the Fishery Board for Scotland, and have been investigated. No evidence of illegal fishing in these instances was forthcoming, but the area in question will continue to receive close attention from the fishery cruisers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if an English trawler gets in sight of the coast, it is the offence of illegal trawling at once?

    CHILD ASSAULT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
    Mr. COUPERasked the Lord Advocate whether the Committee of Inquiry regarding child assault has completed its proceedings; and, if so, when will the Report of the Committee be issued?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand that the Committee hopes to present its Report to me about the end of next month.

    WEIR HOUSES, CUPAR.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHEILSasked the Secretary for Scotland whether a, tender has been accepted for a number of Weir houses in or near Cupar, Fifeshire; if so, what number has been ordered and what price per house has been approved by the Board of Health; and whether the labour difficulties in connection with the erection of the Weir type house have been overcome to allow these houses to be erected?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In reply to the first two parts of the question, I understand that the town council of Cupar Burgh have under consideration a tender for 38 Weir houses but that the tender has not yet been accepted. The question of the Board's approval has not therefore arisen. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that any difficulty in connection with the erection of Weir houses has usually occurred when

    2027
    operatives engaged on ordinary building schemes in the area of the authority have struck or threatened to strike in order to induce the discontinuance of this new method. So far as I am aware this difficulty would not arise in Cupar.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it not true that the position of the building trade unions is that the men can be engaged on that work providing they are employed under trade union conditions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Government have repeatedly stated that they adhere to the Report of the Committee which investigated this matter, and which rules this question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Secretary for Scotland not aware that last Thursday the Glasgow Town Council received a deputation from the building trade appealing to the Council to do something to employ the men engaged in the building trade who are idle in and around the West of Scotland?
    Mr. SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman, not aware that Fife is a kingdom and not a shire?

    CATTLE, LEWIS.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland has recently refused an application from the grazings committee of North Dell, near Stornoway, for the loan of an Ayrshire bull, informing the committee that a Highland bull only could be supplied; and, in view of the fact that the crofters desire to improve the milk supply, whether he will give instructions that an Ayrshire bull is to be lent to the district, the pasture of which is suitable for that stock?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board of Agriculture refused the application for an Ayrshire bull because they consider that the land and climatic conditions in Lewis are not suitable for Ayrshire cattle or Ayrshire crosses and because the Ayrshire cross stirks would not be suitable for fattening purposes. In these circumstances, I cannot hold out a prospect that the Board's decision can be reconsidered.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: In view of the fact that the local people, who know best in this matter, do not share that view, will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire into this question?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made inquiries into it, and my information is that two of the particular sections of the people in that district have already tried an Ayrshire bull, without success, and have returned it and asked for a Highland bull.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these bulls have not been tried?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot delay further on this question.

    HOUSING SUBSIDY.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Secretary for Scotland the weight of steel used in construction of each of the four types of houses specially selected for the additional housing subsidy; and what is the weight of steel used in other types of steel houses?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Only two of the four makes of houses approved for additional subsidy use steel sheets in their construction. The firms are Messrs. Cowieson and Messrs. Weir of Glasgow, and the weight of steel sheets per house used by the former is 1 ton 9½ cwt. for the bungalow type, and 1 ton 8½ cwt. for the cottage type; and by the latter, 1 ton, 3¾ cwt. for the Blanefield type, 1 ton 4½ cwt. for the Eastwood type, and 1 ton 16 cwt. for the Douglas type. Before I can reply to the last part of the question, I would require to know what other types the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any consideration was given to the question of employment in the steel, coal and allied trades in Scotland when making his selection of houses qualified to receive the special subsidy, as was foreshadowed in the Prime Minister's speech in Glasgow on 1st October?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Consideration was given to the question of employment in the trades referred to, along with all other relevant factors.
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland the price of the

    2029
    lowest tender for houses selected for the additional subsidy; and of what material the house is to be made?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The lowest tender price is £360 per house. The house is of timber with brick or concrete foundations. In considering the tender price of approved types regard should be had to the respective footnotes contained in the Scottish Board of Health's Circular dated 23rd ultimo, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any justification for the payment of the additional £40 subsidy for a house like this, and does he think that these houses are satisfactory to the working class for dwelling in?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: We have submitted a list of houses to the local authorities, and it will be for them to say whether they think they will be satisfactory or not. The justification for these alternative types is the impossibility of getting ordinary houses for the working classes.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the state of affairs as it exists at the moment, when the statement is made that they are getting on better with the provision of houses for the people in England than we are in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No. It is because I am not satisfied with the present position of affairs that we are making these further proposals.

    HOUSING TYPES.
    Dr. SHIELSasked the Secretary for Scotland the numbers of the various types of houses already selected, provisionally or otherwise, by local authorities under instructions contained in the Circular of 3rd October, 1925, and the names of the authorities concerned?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Circular to which the hon. Member refers was a preliminary Circular, explaining the conditions of the scheme, and stating that the Board of Health would ascertain by-advertisement, and announce for the information of local authorities, the names and addresses of firms who would be prepared to erect houses under the conditions of the scheme, and within prices
    2030
    which the Board could approve. The announcement of firms approved was duly made by the Board's Circular to local authorities of 23rd November, and as the time within which application must be made under that Circular has not yet expired I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to the types selected by local authorities.
    Dr. SHIELS: May I take it that the list is not finally completed, as I think there were four firms on that one? May that number be added to?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, certainly not, until we see the full result of the replies

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    PROFITS, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. HARTSHORNasked the Secretary for Mines what quantity of coal was produced at a profit in the South Wales coalfield during the months of August, September and October, 1925, respectively; and the amount of subsidy paid in respect of that output?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): As I have already informed the right hon. Gentleman, this information is not available. Nor are there any returns at present in my possession from which it could be collected. The quantity of coal produced at a profit could only be ascertained from the returns made to the accountants, or those made to the Mining Association, and both are so fully occupied in the collection of a mass of statistics for the Royal Commission that I cannot at present ask them to undertake this fresh burden. Later it may be important to have this information, not for purposes of subvention, which it does not affect, but in order to see what the position will be afterwards; and if I decide to ask for it, I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

    BRIQUETTES.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Secretary for Mines whether there are any facilities for experimenting in the making of briquettes or other forms of compressed duff at any of the Government experimental stations; and, if so, will he state what processes they have examined?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: There are some facilities at His Majesty's Fuel Research Station for experimenting in the making of briquettes, but no systematic examination of briquetting processes has been carried out. The work done has been ancillary to other investigations, and has been described in the Report of the Fuel Research Board for the period ended the 31st December, 1924.

    LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONIZATION.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Secretary for Mines whether, on their recent visit to the Experimental Station at Greenwich, the members of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry inspected any processes of low-temperature carbonisation?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes. Sir. The members of the Royal Commission at their recent visit to His Majesty's Fuel Research Station, were shown all the plant at the station and the work in progress. This included the experimental retorts for low-temperature carbonisation described in the Report of the Fuel Research Board for the period ended 31st December, 1924, and the Report of the Committee for Scientific and Industrial Research for the year 1924–25 (Cmd. 2491).

    ROAD FUND.
    Mr. FENBYasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a request from the County Councils' Association of England and Wales that he should receive a deputation with reference to the Road Fund; and if it will be possible for him to receive such deputation at an early date?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to answer this question. Although at present a deputation such as that referred to would be premature, the Association has been informed that, before a final decision is taken, I shall be glad to see them, together with certain other bodies who have also approached the Government in the matter. In accordance with this promise, I hope to be able to receive the deputation early next year, when deputations on Budget matters are normally received.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Transport if he will lay a Paper showing the total amount of the yield of the Motor-car Tax in the financial year ending 31st March, 1924; the total amount expended out of yield of those taxes upon main roads and upon second class roads in each county, city, and county borough in Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and the expenditure upon special undertakings such as new roads, bridges, etc., specifying each case?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in possession of information regarding Northern Ireland, as grants from the Road Fund are confined to authorities in Great Britain. As regards the remainder of the question, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Report on the administration of the Road Fund for the year 1923–24 contains detailed information substantially on the lines indicated in the question.

    INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the settlement and funding of the Italian debt to the United States of America; and when a settlement of the Italian debt to this country may be expected?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Italian Government are sending a mission, headed by the Minister of Finance, to London on the 15th or 16th December to undertake formal negotiations for the funding of the Italian debt to this country.
    Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the very much more favourable terms obtained from America by Italy than ourselves, and will he consult the Prime Minister with a view to altering it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally I follow very closely all that is taking place, but I have no statement to make to the House.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CIVIL SERVANTS' SALARIES.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of

    2033
    the £223,000,000 Estimate for the Civil Service is in respect of salaries to Civil Servants; and how much of this latter amount is payable to Post Office officials and officials of the Revenue Department, respectively?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Estimate of £223,000,000 to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is the net estimate for the Civil Services, and does not include the Revenue Departments, with the Post Office, for which the Estimate for 1925–26 is £64,350,000. These figures are net estimates, after deducting receipts appropriated in aid of Votes. The total provision for salaries and wages of Civil Servants in the Civil Service Estimates is approximately 17¼ millions (this figure does not include Ministers' salaries, diplomatic and consular staffs, overtime payments, employers' insurance contributions and certain miscellaneous items not by way of remuneration, neither does it include industrial staffs). The provision for salaries and wages in the Revenue Departments, calculated on a, similar basis and including Post Office manipulative staffs but excluding industrial staffs, is approximately £38,000,000.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the statement attributed to him that he docs not intend to reduce any salaries of civil servants, and whether he will confirm that statement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is another question on the Paper on that subject.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to allay the apprehension of civil servants regarding the possibility of the reduction of their remuneration, he will consider the possibility of making an early statement on the subject?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask whether the findings of the Committee presided over by Lord Askwith in 1920 are to be absolutely final and permanent?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Then the Committee over which Lord Askwith presided was on this particular question—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was merely asked whether he would make a statement, and he said he would.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: May I repeat the question I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, whether he has seen the statement made by another Member of the House attributing to the Chancellor the statement that he does not intend to reduce salaries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I have seen that statement. All these matters must be under the consideration of the Cabinet in the next few weeks, but I expect before Christmas, or at any rate early in the now year, we shall be able to make a statement of our general policy in this matter, but at the present time the Cabinet claim the right to examine without restriction every aspect and branch of public expenditure.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the, right hon. Gentleman say, then, that a Member of this House, who made the statement that he was authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say there would be no reduction, made it without his authority?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This cannot be further pursued.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount provided in the Supply Estimates of this year for the salaries, wages and bonuses of all the civilians employed in all departments of State except workmen in the royal arsenals and dockyards, and persons not engaged in administrative work in the Post Office and the Office of Works?
    Mr. McNEILL: The total gross provision in the 1925–26 Estimates (including expenditure recovered in whole or in part from fees or other sources and appropriated in aid of Votes) for salaries and wages, including bonus, of all civilians employed in the Civil Service and Revenue Departments, except workmen employed by the Office of Works and manipulative and industrial workers in the Post Office, is approximately £32,800,000, of Which £1,130,000 represents the total provision for the Diplomatic Consular and other Imperial services abroad. In addition there is pro-

    2035
    vision for analogous civilian staff in the employ of the Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry of approximately £5,250,000.

    INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
    Major HARVEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the salaries, respectively, of the Director and Assistant Director of Statistics and Intelligence in the Inland Revenue Department, and also the number of clerks employed in this Department during the last financial year and the total amount of salaries paid for that year to the staff; and will he give the corresponding figures of numbers and salaries for the financial year ending 1914?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No remuneration is paid to the Director of Statistics and Intelligence, the duties of the post having been assumed by one of the existing Assistant Secretaries of the Board of Inland Revenue. The salary of the Assistant Director is £750, plus cost-of-living bonus, amounting to £211. The number of the subordinate staff during 1924–25 was on average 70; the salary cost, including bonus, being £12,850. The corresponding figures for the financial year ended 1914 cannot be separately ascertained, as the cost of the services now performed by the staff of the Director of Statistics and Intelligence was included in the cost of other branches of the Department.

    SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research recently advertised in "Engineering" for a tracer to be employed at Watford, the wage offered being from 30s. to 50s. weekly; that the advertisement stated that preference would be given to an ex-service man; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the wage offered and the general rates paid for tracing work, he will have the figure raised to one more in keeping with adult needs?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am aware of the advertisement referred to and that it stated that preference would be given to ex-service men.
    2036
    It is the general practice to include this statement in the Departments advertisements, but it was inappropriate in this case and should not have been included. The vacancy was suited to a junior (male or female) with little experience, and the range of initial pay was fixed accordingly and not with reference to an adult. A junior (age 17) is being offered the post.

    CONFISCATED DUTIABLE GOODS
    Mr. YOUNGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the quantity and value of tobacco, cigars, and other dutiable goods confiscated by the Customs authorities during the last three years from people entering this country; and in what way are confiscated articles disposed of and to whom?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The quantity of tobacco and spirits seized for breaches of the Customs and Excise Laws during the last three financial years is as follows:

    Year ended

    Tabacco, Cigars, etc.

    Spirits.

    Lbs.

    Galls.

    31st March, 1923

    …

    4,453

    1,177

    31st March 1924

    …

    3,915

    915

    31st March 1925

    …

    3,920

    843

    Figures of value cannot be furnished, but such further particulars as are available will be found in the Reports of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for these years.
    The confiscated tobacco in sound condition is sent to the Criminal Lunatic Asylums and to the Inebriate Reformatories for consumption by the inmates; the tobacco unfit for human consumption, but useful for fumigating purposes, is sent to the Botanic Gardens at Kew and Edinburgh. The other goods are sold by public auction or tender from time to time.

    SOVIET TRADING ORGANISATION (INCOME TAX).
    Sir N. GRATTON-DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the directors of the Soviet trading organisation, now engaged in the distribution of Russian oil in this country, pay Income Tax to this country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded from disclosing information as to the Income Tax paid by any individual person or company, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the organisation to which he refers and its directors are being treated in conformity with the Income Tax Acts.
    Mr. HARDIE: Who is buying this Russian oil?

    FOREIGN VISITORS (IMPOSTS).
    Mr. PILCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his quest for new sources of taxation, foe has weighed the merits of the imposts now levied almost universally on foreign visitors to the Continental capitals of Europe in the shape of percentage taxes on hotel bills graded according to the standards of luxury or economy observed by the visitors?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) on the 26th November.

    INCOME TAX (ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. PILCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the disabilities inflicted upon separated persons in the collection of the Income Tax in such wise that the separated man receives a personal allowance of only £135 as against £225 for a man whose wife lives with him and is wholly maintained by him and is denied the allowance for a housekeeper which, under certain circumstances, a bachelor can obtain; and whether he can hold out hope of relief to such separated persons in the next Budget?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The allowance to a bachelor to which my hon. Friend apparently refers, is granted in respect of a female relative living with and maintained by him to look after young brothers or sisters of his. I understand that this allowance is in practice granted to a separated or divorced man in like case.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the volume of trade done by the co-operative societies of this country in the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively; and will he say whether such trading is subject to Income Tax?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for the year 1924, Part III of which gives particulars of trading of all co-operative societies from 1913 to 1923 inclusive. Similar particulars for distributive trading societies for the year 1924 are given in the Statistical Summary showing the operations of co-operative societies (distributive trading) issued by the chief Registrar on the 12th October last. Co-operative societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, are entitled to exemption from Income Tax under Schedules C and D unless sales are made to persons who are not members and the number of the society's shares is limited either by rules or practice. There is, however, no general exemption from Income Tax enjoyed by co-operative societies. If reference is made to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax (Command Paper 615 of 1920) it will be seen that the tax paid by the societies and their members under the legal provision which governs their case does not greatly differ from that which would be payable under the ordinary Income Tax law.
    Sir F. HALL: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted in his answer that the co-operative societies are receiving some benefit from which the ordinary shopkeeper is precluded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Will he look into the matter and see, in the preparation of his forthcoming Budget, whether something might be derived from these people, so as to place the co-operative societies more on an equity with the poorer trading people?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall certainly give consideration to the matter. Like my predecessors, I have already given some consideration to it, but, on its merits, the case is doubtful, and controversy over it would be very fierce and the results exceedingly small.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that, had it not been for the Labour party, the Tory party would have taxed the co-operative societies, as desired by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who put the question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The sense of ray answer was that they are already taxed practically on the same scale as the rest of the community, and they were so taxed even under other Governments than this!
    Sir F. HALL: Arising out of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood)—
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

    MALTING BARLEY (IMPORT DUTY).
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any and, if so, how many treaties with Foreign Powers would have to be revised if a tax on malting barley were imposed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Treasury Committee which considered the question of the best means of levying a Customs duty on imported malting barley?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. The answer is none.

  POST OFFICE.

    FOREIGN PARCELS (CUSTOMS CHARGE).
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury under what Parliamentary authority the Customs officials are collecting a parcel tax of 6d. on every parcel containing dutiable goods?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to answer this question. The fee to which the hon. Member refers is authorised by paragraph 8 of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Warrant, 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders 1925, No. 729) made by the Treasury on the representation of the Postmaster-General under the Post Office Acts, 1908–1920. It is charged in respect of the work performed by the Post Office on behalf of the addressee in clearing a parcel through the Customs.

    SWITCHBOARDS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General the reason why the switchboards required by the General Post Office, London, were ordered from Germany; and will he state the amount of such foreign tender and the amount of British tenders from British manufacturers?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member has apparently been misled by a false report, which I publicly refuted nearly two months ago. The Post Office has not ordered switchboards from Germany, nor obtained a tender for them from that or any other foreign country; and the rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not the fact that switches were delivered at the Post Office with the eases stamped on "From Germany"?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Oh, yes. I have already stated in public that what arrived at the General Post Office was one set of special high-speed telegraphic apparatus from Germany, at a cost of something like £2,000, and that it was for experimental purposes.

    BROADCASTING COMMITTEE.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Postmaster-General the names of the witnesses who have given evidence before the Broadcasting Committee, indicating in each case the interests on whose behalf they speak; what proportion, if any, of the earlier proceedings are to be made public; and whether it is proposed to publish any Interim Report?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Broadcasting Committee has so far held one meeting, at which the Secretary to the Post Office gave evidence. It will be for the Committee to decide in due course whether it should issue any Interim Report, and whether it should recommend the publication of evidence.

    FACILITIES, WITHINGTON.
    Dr. WATTSasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the inadequate postal facilities in the large and growing district of Withington, as regards accommodation at the local post office, where the room available for business transactions is but a narrow

    2041
    passage in a stationer's shop, and people have frequently to stand in a queue before they can get near the counter; whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused by the early clearance of the letter boxes at 6.45 p.m. on week-days, and by the crush to post letters in the box which is placed on the 9 o'clock tram, which box is usually full before the car has proceeded half a mile on its journey; and whether he will remedy these inconveniences?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The premises now occupied were the best available when the, office became vacant, and I am assured that the accommodation for the public is adequate for ordinary requirements; the possibility of obtaining more commodious premises will not be overlooked should a favourable opportunity occur. The latest hour of posting at the Withington Post Office is 7.45 p.m., and the collections could not be made later without missing connection with the general night mails from Manchester. My information does not confirm the statement that the tram box is usually full at an early stage of the journey; but I will endeavour to arrange with the Manchester Corporation for the provision of an additional box.

  TRANSPORT.

    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (FIRST-CLASS PASSENGERS).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that certain trains on the Great Western Railway stop at stations to pick up first-class passengers only; and whether he will take steps to put an end to such discrimination?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that in certain cases the railway company are prepared to stop fast trains at places at which they are not booked to make a regular stop, on notice being given by first-class passengers. The practice is one within the commercial discretion of the company.
    Mr. BAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the same facilities for third-class passengers?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If any body of traders or passengers feel they are
    2042
    wronged their remedy is to apply to the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of a prosecution against the railway company for increasing by its action the class war?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is necessary that express trains on this line should stop so frequently at Badminton?
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange with the railway company to have a supply of the Home Secretary's castor oil?

    LONDON TRAFFIC (TRAMCARS).
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Minister of Transport whether, in inquiring into the needs of London traffic, his Department investigates such factors as the lack of adequate attention to comfort in the tramcars, more especially since this consideration has a direct bearing upon the preference given to competitive omnibuses?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The question of the degree of comfort to be afforded on London tramcars is not one over which I have jurisdiction. It is a matter for the tramway authorities themselves, to whom it is undoubtedly a matter of considerable importance from the point of view which my hon. Friend indicates in the latter part of his question.

    ROAD BOARD (MORAY).
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry set up by the Road Board of the county of Moray by resolution, dated 7th September, 1925; whether, in the spending of £40,000 by the Road Board, proper safeguards operated to prevent some portion of this money being wasted by inefficient administration; and, if not, whether he is now prepared to appoint a commission of inquiry to go into all the facts?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have had an opportunity of examining the report of the Committee appointed by the County Road Hoard of Moray to investigate the working of certain road plant. Although certain modifications (have been introduced into the methods of working, I do

    2043
    not consider that there is evidence of inefficient administration such as would call for action by my Department.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the Councillors of the Warwick Council resigned owing to difficulty that had arisen, and that he was refused permission to give evidence at the Committee of Inquiry?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I believe there has been some trouble of that sort, but in such a case it must be left to the local people to arrange their own affaire in their own way.

    BIRMINGHAM-WOLVERHAMPTON ROAD.
    Mr. PIELOUasked the Minister of Transport whether satisfactory progress is being made with the new road between Birmingham and Wolverhampton; and when the same is expected to be completed?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Work is progressing satisfactorily, though some delay has occurred in places owing to difficulties of land acquisition. I hope that the road will be completed within about eighteen months from now.

    RHEUMATIC DISEASES (SPA TREATMENT.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the large amount of working time lost by workers in industry owing to rheumatic diseases, he will consider the advisability of the adoption of spa treatment for all persons insured under the National Health Insurance Acts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. The matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member has been the subject of evidence before the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance and will be considered when their Report has been received.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea when this Commission is likely to report?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think, shortly; progress is being made.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every year there are 3,500,000 working weeks lost by insured men and women through rheumatism?
    Sir K. WOOD: Thai may be so. The matter is being considered by the Commission, as I have already stated.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS (APPEALS).
    Sir JOHN SIMONasked the Minister of Pensions whether, if an applicant delays his appeal against the rejection of his claim for a pension beyond two months, the date of pension, if his appeal is successful, operates from the date of the lodging of his appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal whereas, in cases where the appeal is made within two months of the notification of the rejection of the claim and is successful, the date of the operation of the award is from the date of his original claim; and. if so, whether this information can be given to claimants in the notification of the rejection of the claim?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The normal practice of ante-dating payment to the date of appeal on the issue of entitlement to pension is subject to the concession referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the case of appeals made within two months of the rejection of the claim by the Ministry. This concession is, however, a matter of departmental practice only, and the period of two months may in certain cases be exceeded where, from unavoidable cause, it is shown that an appellant could not make his appeal at an earlier date. Every notification of rejection of a claim by the Ministry has for some time past, by my right hon. Friend's instructions, been accompanied by a special intimation to the claimant to the effect that if he desires to appeal it is advisable for him to do so as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend doubts whether he could advisedly add to this intimation, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion will be considered.
    Sir J. SIMON: In considering this suggestion, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider whether a grave

    2045
    injustice is not done to a man who is told he has twelve months in which to appeal if he is not also plainly told that his position may be better if he appeals within two months than if he waits till the two months have passed?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is precisely what I have stated in my answer to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestions will be considered.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (BAUMBER).
    Mr. A. M. WILLIAMSasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the Minister of Agriculture, whether the Ministry have been able to trace the origin of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in a new area at Baumber, near Horncastle?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Major Sir Harry Barnston): My right hon. Friend regrets that investigations covering a wide field have so far failed to reveal the origin of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Baumber.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the origin of any other outbreak has been definitely traced?
    Sir H. BARNSTON: Yes, I think so.
    Mr. HURD: Can we have a statement of any facts which the Ministry has as to origin?
    Sir H. BARNSTON: Yes, certainly.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    OFFICERS SECONDED.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers of the Army and Air Force have been seconded from one Service to the other under the scheme authorised by the Air and Army Councils in November, 1920; how many officers are there on the Reserve for the Royal Air Force; and what proportion are fully qualified pilots at the present date?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): 106 Army officers have been seconded to the Royal Air Force under the scheme referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. The scheme
    2046
    for the secondment of Royal Air Force officers for the Army was not intended to be put into immediate operation, and no secondments have yet been made. The answer to the second part is 938, and to the last part 648, of whom 549 are in regular flying practice and immediately available. In addition, 14 Reserve officers are at present undergoing ab initio flying training.

    HORNCHURCH AERODROME (WAGE DISPUTE)
    Mr. DENNISONasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that Messrs. Nortons, Tividale, Staffs, are not paying the recognised standard rates of wages and general conditions of employment to the workpeople engaged on the erection of an aerodrome for the Ministry at Horncastle; will he state if the terms of contract contained the usual Fair Wages Clause; and, if so, will he take steps to see that the Clause is complied with?
    Sir S. HOARE: On the assumption that the hon. Member is referring to Horn-church (not Horncastle) Aerodrome, representations were made to the Air Ministry to the effect stated in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, after making inquiries, the Department suggested that the point in dispute would be best settled through the internal machinery of the industry, that is, between the union and the employers' association. If it cannot be so settled, the Air Ministry will take steps to ascertain the proper rate of wages with a view to ensuring the observance of the Fair Wages Clause.
    Mr. DENNISON: To avoid a stoppage of work, will the Minister recommend to this firm that they should go to arbitration, seeing they do not belong to any employers' association?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think the best procedure would be that which I have indicated in my answer. We have tried it in other cases and it has answered. If it does not answer, then I will consult with the hon. Gentleman opposite as to what the next best step would be.

    ARREST OF MAJOR SHEPPARD.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Home Secretary whether the application

    2047
    which has been made on behalf of Major Robert Sheppard for his own costs which were incurred in connection with the case in which he was exonerated, and also in connection with the inquiry ordered by him, has been acceded to?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): In so far as Major Sheppard's application to the War Office related to the expenses incurred in connection with proceedings in the Courts, I considered it carefully and sympathetically, but I could not find any reason to differentiate this case from thousands of others where unfounded charges have been brought and where the defendant has been acquitted; and that being so, I could find no sufficient reason for reimbursing Major Sheppard these costs. As regards Major Sheppard's expenses in connection with the inquiry, I understand that the Army Council has been in communication with the Treasury, and that the Treasury has agreed to repay such expenses as were reasonably incurred by him.

    COMMUNIST PROSECUTION.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent trial, conviction and sentence of 12 Communists at the Old Bailey, and the statements made by the Judge during the summing up as to the law relating to the propaganda and organisation of persons holding Communist views, it is the intention of the Government to issue a notice warning citizens of the United Kingdom that membership of the Communist party, which has for its object the complete supersession of the present political, social and industrial order by the establishment of a Communist system based upon the common ownership of land and capital for the service of the community, is illegal, and that persons taking part in such organisation and such propaganda will be liable to prosecution and imprisonment?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think any such notice is required. Most people understand that the Communists recently sentenced at the Old Bailey were prosecuted, not on account of their
    2048
    opinions, but because they advocated the use of unconstitutional and violent means in order to give effect to them.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Judge who tried the man offered to release certain of the prisoners on condition that they gave up their membership of this organisation and agreed to be bound over?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am fully aware of what the Judge did, and the offer he made to those seven defendants, but I think it would be more convenient, as we are going to discuss the matter in a few minutes, that the hon. Gentleman should raise this in Debate.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in the Judge's view, these people were guilty of belonging to an illegal organisation, how he can square that with his statement in this House that the advocacy of Communism in this country by British subjects was lawful?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That could not be pursued without leading to a Debate.
    Mr. LANSBURY: This is a question of very great importance to a very large number of His Majesty's subjects. We have the law in the Courts contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER.
Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I wish to put before you, Sir, a point of Order in relation to a Private Notice Question which I sent to the Minister of Pensions this morning, after notifying Mr. Speaker in accordance with the regulations. I have had a letter from Mr. Speaker, who says he cannot accept this question, because it deals with a private case. The case was one of a man—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am not going into the merits of the case, except to say that I notified the Minister of Pensions of the case a month ago. I received a letter to-day that he could not give me a reply, and I want to know when I can have information upon this case? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] A man in the asylum had his wife's pension reduced! [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
Mr. HARDIE: Pinching from the Church ex-service man and giving it to the landlords.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been going into the merits of the case. The rule is that, to get an answer, a question must be put down two days before the answer is required. It is within the discretion of Mr. Speaker, if he consider a question one of urgency, to allow it to be asked after a Quarter to Four on any day, on notice being given to the Minister. Mr. Speaker did consider this question, and was not of opinion that it was of sufficient urgency or importance to justify him in relaxing the ordinary rules.
Mr. ADAMSON: I want to be fair to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have no wish to contest your ruling, but I demand from the Minister of Pensions an answer as to why he has forced this man into an asylum-[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]- and reduced his wife's pension by 3s., which I say is a disgrace. I want to ask-[Hon. MEMBERS: "Order!"]-I am going to see that this House-[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]-contrary to the constitution of this country and by your action these things are going on-[Interruption]-I want a reply to this question.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must resume his seat.
HON. MEMBERS: Name!
Mr. ADAMSON: I want this case gone into now, because the Minister of Pensions has held it up for a month. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I am going to state this case now, and I am entitled to bring it forward here. I am going to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to have this matter gone into immediately, and I ask you—
HON. MEMBERS: Name!
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I name the hon. Member for the Cannock Division (Mr. W. M. Adamson) for persistently disregarding the authority of the Chair.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That Mr. William Murdoch Adamson, the Member for the Cannock Division of Staffordshire, be suspended from the service of the House."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 91.

Division No. 432.]

AYES.

[3.54 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Fenby, T. D.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Fermoy, Lord

Albery, Irving James

Chapman, Sir S.

Fielden, E. B.

Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Alton, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Chilcott, sir Warden

Forrest, W.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Christie, J. A.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Fraser, Captain Ian

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Clarry, Reginald George

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Clayton, G. c.

Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

Barclay-Harvey, C. M,

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Ganzoni, Sir John

Beamish, Captain T. P. M.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Gates, Percy

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Cooper, A. Duff

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Cope, Major William

Gee, Captain R.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Couper, J. B.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Berry, Sir George

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Bethell, A.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Goff, Sir Park

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Grace, John

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Grant, J. A.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Briant, Frank

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Gretton, Colonel John

Briggs, J. Harold

Davidson, J.(Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Briscoe, Richard George

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Brocklebank. C. E. R.

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hall. Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Hammersley, S. S.

Buckingham. Sir H.

Dixey, A. C.

Hanbury. C.

Bullock, Captain M.

Drewe, C.

Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Eden, Captain Anthony

Harmsworth. Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Burman, J. B.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Harrison. G. J. C.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Haslam, Henry C.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Hawke, John Anthony

Caine, Gordon Hall

Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Campbell, E. T.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Heneaqe, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Hilton, Cecil

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Morrison, H. Wilts, Salisbury,

Smithers, Waldron

Holland, Sir Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Murchison, C. K.

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Newman, Sir P. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsl'ld.)

Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Nuttall, Ellis

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Huntingfield, Lord

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Hurd, Percy A

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Owen, Major G.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Pease, William Edwin

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)

Penny, Frederick George

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Templeton, W. P.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Jephcott, A. R.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Philipson, Mabel

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Pielou, D. P.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Plicher, G.

Tinne, J. A.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Pliditch, Sir Philip

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Preston, William

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Lamb, J. Q.

Radford, E. A.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Raine, W.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Ramsden, E.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Loder, J. de V.

Rentoul, G. S.

Watts, Dr. T.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Wells. S. R.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Wiggins, William Martin

Macintyre. Ian

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

McLean, Major A.

Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Salmon, Major I.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Winby, Colonel L. P.

MacRobcrt, Alexander M.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Malone, Major P. B.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Wise, Sir Fredric

Margesson, Captain D.

Sandon, Lord

Wolmer, Viscount

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Savery, S. S.

Womersley, W. J.

Mason, Lieut. Col. Glyn K.

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde-

Meller, R. J.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts. Westb'y)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Merriman, F. B.

Shepperson, E. W.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Mitchell. Sir w. Lane (Streatham)

Skeiton, A. N.

Major Sir Harry Barnston.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Scrymgeour, E.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

Hardie, George D.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Ammon, Charles George

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Sitch, Charles H.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hayes, John Henry

Smillie, Robert

Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Baker, Walter

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Snell, Harry

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hirst, G. H.

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Barnes, A.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Stamford, T. W.

Barr, J.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Stephen, Campbell

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Sutton, J. E.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Kennedy, T.

Taylor, R. A.

Bromfield, William

Kirkwood, D.

Thurtle, E.

Bromley, J.

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Buchanan, G.

Lowth, T.

Townend, A. E.

Cape, Thomas

Lunn, William

Viant, S. P.

Cluse, W. S.

Mackinder, W.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Compton, Joseph

MacLaren, Andrew

Warne, G. H.

Connolly, M.

March, S.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Dalton, Hugh

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Montague, Frederick

Weir, L M.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Whiteley, W.

Day, Colonel Harry

Murnin, H.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Dennison, R.

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Dunnico, H.

Palin, John Henry

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Windsor, Walter

Gillett, George M.

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

Greenall, T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton.le-Spring)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Riley, Ben

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —

Groves, T.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)

Mr. George Lansbury and Mr.

Grundy, T. W,

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Kelly.

Hall, F. (York, w. R-, Normanton)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must now ask the hon. Member to withdraw.
Mr. WALLHEAD: That is a job you love.
Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I accept the ruling of my fellow Members.
Whereupon, the hon. Member for the Cannock Division withdrew from the House.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Home Secretary.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS then proceeded to present a Bill.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Can I ask you a question on a point of Order?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, I have called upon the Home Secretary.
Mr. BUCHANAN Mr. BUCHANAN rose—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must resume his seat, and raise his point at some other time.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I not entitled, on a point of Order, to raise a question?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Dr. Salter.
Dr. SALTER Dr. SALTER then proceeded to present a Bill.
Mr. BECKETT: Do we understand that with this pack of howling dogs we are not entitled—[Interruption.] We do not mind the Chair, but we do object to—[Interruption.]
Captain GEE rose—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Captain Wedgwood Benn.
Captain GEE: On a point of Order— [Interruption.]

BILLS PRESENTED.
  CORONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to Coroners," presented by Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS; supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to smoke nuisances, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Dr. SALTER; supported by Mr. Viant, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Barr, Mr. Broad, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Stewart, Mr. David Williams, Miss Wilkinson, Mr. Warne and Mr. Thomas Henderson; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 15th December, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

  PROSECUTION FOR EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move,
  "That leave be given to brine in a Bill better to secure that no person shall be convicted for the expression of opinion, and for other purposes relating thereto."
  As the Debate this afternoon appears likely to be a controversial one, and as it has a special bearing on a special ease, I thought that I might crave the indulgence, and the very brief indulgence, of the House for leave to introduce a Bill which will set out in general terms what we believe to be the meaning of freedom of speech. In order that hon. Members may understand exactly what is the issue upon which we propose to ask the House to vote, if indeed a Vote be taken, I will state precisely what is the one effective Clause of the Bill which I ask leave to introduce. The Bill proposes, in the first place, slightly to alter the procedure in trials for sedition and to assimilate it to the procedure in criminal libel trials. It will require the Judge to put to the jury a specific question before the accused can be declared guilty, and the question which it is proposed to instruct the Judge to put to the jury—it is also a definition—is the following:
  "Does the matter complained of amount to more than an expression of opinion, and has it led, or is it reasonably calculated to lead, directly to public disorder."
  If the jury be unable to answer that question in the affirmative, then this Bill directs the acquittal of the accused. Now I direct the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill alters the law. In the first place, it would dispose of the first definition of sedition which was given by the Prime Minister at the Unionist Conference at Brighton. We propose to alter the law, because the present legal

  2055
  meaning of seditious libel might easily be so used as to check a great deal of what is ordinarily considered as allowable discussion and would, if rightly enforced, be inconsistent with the prevailing forms of political agitation. That is the reason why this Bill proposes to alter the law. While it does not deprive the State of the weapon to protect itself against the advocacy of violence when public necessity demands it, it does protect the accused, and attempts to secure to him the right of a fair trial.
  It is extremely necessary that in a case of this kind we should take every precaution to secure for the accused a fair trial. In the first place, he is standing in the dock faced with an enormous mass of popular disapproval; in the second place, he may be faced with a willingness on the part of the Counsel for the Crown to strain, and even break through, the protection which is afforded to him by the law under the Criminal Evidence Act; and, thirdly, the accused may be made the subject of a campaign of prejudice on the platform by Ministers of the Crown, and even by those who are specially charged with the execution of these duties. In the case with which we shall deal this afternoon —if I may refer to it for a moment to illustrate my point—the Home Secretary, nine days before he ordered the arrests to be made and knowing that arrests were about to be made, named two of the defendants, Pollitt and Gallacher, and declared on the public platform in advance that they were guilty of the offence for which they were about to be tried.
  This Bill first attempts to secure a fair trial for people so charged. It also attempts to protect freedom of speech. When we say that we are in favour of freedom of speech we do not mean only freedom to speak what we approve or what we tolerate or what we think reasonable. We mean freedom to say what we disagree with, what we disapprove of, what is subversive, or even what, in our opinion, is intellectually abominable. We say that we believe in this freedom, because we profoundly believe that you cannot imprison thought and that a bad idea can be killed only by a good idea, and falsehood can be overcome only by truth. We say that
  2056
  suppression merely fosters the evil that it seeks to remove.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone, Major Crawfurd, and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

  PROSECUTION FOR OPINION BILL,
  "to make better provision for securing that no person shall be convicted for the expression of opinion, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 266.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fourteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill: the Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Mr. Bethel, Major Crawfurd, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Palin, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. West Russell, Dr. Simms, Colonel Sinclair, Major Steel, Sir Victor Warrender, and Mr. Windsor.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Amendments to—
  Bexhill Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bournemouth and Lyme Regis." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bournemouth and Lyme Regis Orders) Bill [Lords.]
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bournemouth and Lyme Regis Orders) Bill [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  COMMUNIST PROSECUTION.

    VOTE OF CENSURE PROPOSED.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move:
    "That the action of the Government in initiating the prosecution of certain members of the Communist party is a violation of the traditional British rights of freedom of speech and publication of opinion."
    I rise to move this Resolution that stands on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of colleagues of mine regarding the prosecution that has just finished in sending 12 men to gaol. I am very disappointed about this prosecution. The Tory party opposite for several years have been pasting every hoarding from John o' Groats to Lands End with all sorts of bills announcing a Red Peril. We have heard of the most terrible calamities, carefully worked out and well engineered, with tremendous forces behind them, and at last they decided to bring them into the open. The trial took place. Now I do not know, if a certain charge be made, and it be proved as a matter of technical law, it ought not to be the subject of a judgment. That may be so. I do not know which of us would escape the law of sedition if every possible Act and every possible law dealing with sedition were put into operation by a lawyer who thinks about nothing but the technical provisions of the law. It is perfectly well known that the legal mind, when it is divorced from the world, divorced from political assumptions, from the ordinary political operations of society, and when it confines itself exclusively to books, is always the adviser of potentates who are trembling in the balance. But what we have to consider is, not only whether a technical breach of the law has been made, but whether the prosecution itself is for the good of the State.
    The people who were prosecuted the other day happen to be Communists. They hold doctrines with which the Labour party is in conflict—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "]—far more in conflict than the party of the hon. Member, as I
    2076
    shall prove before I sit down. The accused persons were Communists. So far as my colleagues are concerned, so far as our conferences are concerned, our position has been made perfectly clear. We are not only not Communists, but we are actively opposed to Communism. [Interruption.] Certainly, the Noble Lord opposite will understand that, I hope, before we finish. But the question is not whether Communist doctrines are sound or unsound, right or wrong, but whether the prosecution of leading members of the Communist party as it is in this country at the present time is a service or a disservice to the State. The Attorney-General's opening, his closing, and the speech made at Bow Street by another Crown agent, reminded me far more of the Irish prosecutions than anything else. He started, for instance, with a great flourish of trumpets about the money that has come from Russia; he dropped it like a hot potato at the end. I do not know if he mishandled his case, or if he had no evidence and thought it was far better at the end just to re-assert the statement, "We understand that there are secret channels that are bound to have been used; therefore the money must have come from Russia, you take my word for it," without putting a single piece of evidence before the jury. I should have liked to have seen that evidence. I am sorry the Attorney-General was not able to carry out the magnificent aggressiveness of his opening speech when he came to supply witnesses who had to undergo the pains and penalties of cross-examination.
    The question we have to settle is this: Upon what grounds did this trial rest? Hon. Members must remember that it was preceded by a general search. It was none of your old-fashioned, stilted pieces of constitutional rectitude, when the search took place for a specific thing and, if that specific thing was not found, noting else was disturbed. No; that is an old habit, an old prejudice of British constitutionalism, which the modern Tory party has torn up like a scrap of paper They went into the offices and they took everything, from love-letters to death sentences—everything they could lay their hands on; furniture and chairs, I believe, certainly documents and books of all kinds. Later, having laid their hands upon these things, they examined every-

    2077
    thing, and at the end, really, what did it amount to? It amounted to two main things—the possession and publication of documents and papers, and the preaching of certain doctrines. That was the gist of the charge. I have seen the typewritten copy of the Attorney-General's speech, and my typewritten copy runs to 75 pages. Fifty-two pages of the 75 dealt with documents, dealt with books; therefore, the real gist of this prosecution was not mutiny, was not subverting His Majesty's Forces, was not attempts made to create disorder, but the publication of opinion, and the holding of that opinion. Acts— none; no soldier was put in the witness box. So far as regards the documents and books, they were really, in their distinctive points, subversive nonsense— but so is Toryism; and should ever the day of calamity come, I will just take the same attitude towards hon. Members opposite as I take now, because, if we once give away this great, precious foundation of our liberty, you and I, those with whom we agree and those with whom we disagree, those whom we regard as pillars of the Constitution and those whom we regard as Samsons trying to pull down the pillars of the Constitution, are deprived of the right to stand in our open places, to use our bookshops, and say, "This is what I believe." Let that go, and yon are face to face with nothing between reaction on the one hand and revolution on the other.
    That is why I am interested in this; that is why I feel that the House should be interested in it, and why we should all throw off the inspirations of merely what we think right or wrong, what our party thinks right or wrong, and stand for something for which I hope the most extreme wings of this House—extreme on the Right and extreme on the Left—stand in common, namely, that, whoever publishes opinions, whoever holds opinions, whoever brings out into the light their ideas, ought to be left alone, so far as the operation of the law is concerned. Left alone so far as a tremendous bombardment of intellectual attack, of moral attack, is concerned—certainly not; not left alone for a single moment; but, so far as prosecution is concerned, so far as an attempt is made by a Government or by the official prosecuting agency, whether the Government is responsible for it or not, to step in and say, "Because you
    2078
    believe in mutiny, you ought to be in gaol," I say that that is not only so subversive of the old liberties, but is so inimical to our own present security, that Liberals, Conservatives and Labour people ought to join in maintaining it in face of the attack which has been made upon it.
    Nor is it possible for us to overlook contrasts. There is in politics, as in physics, the doctrine of relativity. There is a body in this country just now that makes no bones of the fact that it is arming itself—not the Communist party. There is no humbug there, there is no concealment there. These people say, "We are possessing ourselves of arms, we are practising, we are drilling, we are marching; and lest the vigilant eye of the Home Secretary"—whom we are very glad to see back, however much we disagree with him—"lest the vigilant eye of the Home Secretary, or the vigilant eye of the man in blue, should overlook us, we are actually wearing badges in the public streets, and proclaiming in the open light of day that we belong to those gentlemen who are drilling and are arming for the purpose of creating disturbance should occasion arise." [HON. MEMBERS: "Disturbance by you!"] So far, you have not gaoled me. [An HON. MEMBER: "We will very soon!"] I shall be very delighted to go there on that charge.
    Just to go back to the argument, it is not only theories, it is not only the preparation for action, which is the stage and step beyond the declaration of opinion; it is not merely arming and waiting and watching; actual things have been done. A "Daily Herald" van is held up by armed men; it is damaged. I am not sure that it appeals to me very much on the grounds of property being damaged, but for the moment I am addressing my argument to the right hon. Gentleman, whose heart is always open to the cry of broken property. They go in a public place, in the public streets, having laid their heads together, having met together, having consorted there for a specific and definite purpose, and having exhibited deadly weapons, and by the use of them done certain things—not Communists, but gentlemen whose principles and practice, if the Home Secretary's words mean anything at all, find a great sympathiser

    2079
    in him. That is the contrast that springs into every one of our minds at present.
    Moreover, the Home Secretary himself, who, to judge by a speech he delivered at an amateur dramatic society, has had something to do with it, also presents a very striking contrast. I know what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are going to do about this. We have had echoes of it already. Because we are standing for the right of publication of opinions with which in this case we profoundly disagree—[Interruption.] Certainly. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to send him a penny pamphlet before he laughs again. It is going to be said, "Oh, yes; the Labour party, as a matter of fact, care nothing for constitutional practice or for the observation of Parliamentary decisions." I am surprised at the silence. Here is a perfect gem of an expression of opinion by the right hon. Gentleman, when he says:
    "The people of Ulster have behind them the Unionist party."
    Then with a flight of inspiration that puts him outside the band of politicians and into the band of prophets he said:
    "Behind them is the law of the God of battles."
    Then continuing the same magnificent inspiration he says:
    "In his name and your name I say to the Prime Minister, Let your armies and your batteries fire. Fire if you dare. Fire and be damned."
    I have never in all my reading come across such a glorious example of a sudden flight up to Heaven and an inability to express the imperiousness of the command he received there except in profane language. In ordinary unemotional English he could do nothing. He had to invoke a curse in order to adequately express to his entranced audience the amount of inspiration he received from his flight to Heaven. What was it about? Law and order, peace, quietness, respect for the House of Commons? Not at all. Sedition. The right hon. Gentleman had not merely published pamphlets, books and theses. He had taken part in a definite conspiracy to create mutiny. The twelve men who appeared in the dock the other day were mere babes in their sedition and mutiny compared with the robust adult stage the right hon. Gentleman reached in 1912 and 1913. And this is the party,
    2080
    these are the men who are going to tell the country that because we stand here this afternoon for the right to express opinions, even if we do not believe in them, we are Communists, we are Seditionists. Shame, a sense of decency, ought to restrain them.
    Where has the trial left us? A question was answered to-day, as far as I can understand it, that the Communist party is now an illegal body. What are you going to do with it? We will wait and see. But that is not it all. When I read three speeches—the speech by Sir Travers Humphreys at Bow Street and the two speeches by the Attorney-General—I want to know what opinions we may hold now. I once was interested in the soul of a very well known lawyer who was a very distinguished Member of this House, and in a moment of unusual boldness I handed to him certain books. I am sorry to say the books, which happened to be by myself, contained some documents which would be of value at Bow Street and would put me in a very doubtful position at the Old Bailey, and I am naturally anxious to know how the trial has left us. Let us be perfectly clear about it I will let my position be perfectly clear I say a Briton has the right to preach the right to publish, that great fundamental changes must come upon society, that capitalism must go and, if he believes it—I do not yet—that in that transformation circumstances are such that a revolution is an inevitable incident he has a perfect right to say so If he takes steps to create the revolution—it is a very old-fashioned doctrine surely— then if it is in the interests of the State if the movement is worth noticing, but not if it is like the sedition of some of those Roman gentlemen referred to by Juvenal who were in the category of what we might call the pigmy forces of the nation, then prosecute him and let him take the consequences. Opinions, doctrine, publication—yes. Moreover, he has a right to say that present social conditions can only be cleared by the operation of a class war, that all political operations and policies must be directed and inspired by the assumption of class war. Again I do not believe it, but if people believe it they have the right to say it.
    He has another right. I am going over the doubtful points so far as I have

    2081
    picked them up in those three speeches, because I want our position to be clear. He has a perfect right to say that economic power in modern society is of the nature of a force, that it has got authority in its possession, sometimes used morally, sometimes used industrially, sometimes used politically, sometimes used as a plain expression of force. For instance, troops are called in during the time of a trade dispute. He has a right to say that economic power is a form of force and that those who do not hold that economic power must consider a counteracting force. Further, he has a right to say that Toryism never respects Parliament except when it suits its convenience, and that in the event of a real democratic majority being returned to this House—it is not fair to hon. Members opposite in that form—that in the event of a Labour party majority— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah! "]—Hon. Members would not have noticed it if I had not called attention to it—being returned to this House and putting into operation certain ideas of its own regarding industrial and financial changes, they have a perfect right to say that in that event disturbance would be created which would not be constitutional and would not be political. I am very happy to say I can make all these statements about the rights of individuals because I do not share any one of those opinions myself, and I have not done so. Sometimes one is almost tempted to go over the border-line. When one's experience is such as you got the other day, of unequal administration of justice, the temptation is very great to go over and say, "These people are perfectly right."
    What is the position? These propositions I hold to be wrong. Other people hold them to be right. How is the State, how is the public, to deal with them? By suppression? By force? Nothing could be more clumsy and nothing could be more ridiculous. How can we deal with them? There is a better thing than the law, there is a better thing than the policeman so far as opinion is concerned, and that is to put up sounder opinion against them. Society is going to protect its very delicate fabric, which does not like to be kicked and beaten and coerced, by having liberty preserved to it. An intellectual and a moral attack against error and those who preach error is not helped by prosecution, and that attack
    2082
    is the most effective for the preservation of Society. That better attack is what has been so much damaged by the prosecution which has just ended. Sedition is a disease of the dark. Sedition is a disease which only breeds in underground cellars, in poisonous conditions, when reaction has become so effective in the State that liberty either does not exist or is of no avail. Then, as long as you have the mind of the man expanding, as long as you have the mind of man thinking, as long as you have unsolved problems in the State and as long as you have the whole of society going on evolving and evolving, every time you drive that underground, even if it is bad, it is a danger to society, and you increase the potentialities of sedition.
    My hon. Friends around me, trade union members in particular, are now regarded as being the most stolid and responsible members of society. I do not object to it in the least. But they had a past. There were the days of the Sheffield outrages, the days when trade unions in some places, in some districts, were almost murder clubs. What happened? Gaol, hangings, executions? No use. Every time you made a martyr there was another to step into his shoos. What made the change? Liberty. The hand stretched out, the invitation to "Come out into the open. Come forward. Let us take counsel together. Say what you want to say and we will say what we want to say, and between us we will hammer out the truth, always remembering that when you start action which is a danger to society, which is illegal, then society will strike."
    What is the result of the trial? From one point of view 12 men are in gaol. A good many more ought to have been there since 1912 if these ought to be in gaol in 1925. Seven of the 12 are in gaol under very peculiar circumstances. They are not in because they refused to observe orderly conduct, but they are in because they were asked: "Will you give up this party? Will you give up this association?" I should dearly like it if hon. Members opposite would whisper to mo the answer and tell me what they would do if they were members of an organisation—[An HON. MEMBER: "They would run away!"]—that has been prosecuted, five of their colleagues just sentenced, and the question was put to them, not "Will you be of good behaviour?"—in

    2083
    that case I think they would say "Yes" —but "Will you give up this society?" Of course, they would say "No. Certainly not." Seven of these men are in gaol because they said "No" to that kind of question.
    There is another result of the trial. I think the Attorney-General said—I am not sure, but it does not matter—that a sum of £14,000 had been spent some time or other, that they had a bank balance or a bank expenditure of £12,000 or £14,000. What did they get for it? It does not matter for this purpose whether it came from Moscow Or London or North Wales. [Laughter.]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Mr. MACDONALD: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for so inadvertently and gratuitously entering upon a controversy with which I have nothing to do. What did the people who subscribed get for their £14,000? Everyone who has been in touch with the Communist movement knows that it has been troublesome and provocative over and over again, but whoever subscribed the £14,000 did not get fourteen pennyworth of value. I am not at all sure about that now. I think the Government translated the pence into the pounds, and now that they have intervened the donors of the £14,000 have got value for their money.
    What was the situation which the Government had to face? There is no red peril. This has been an insignificant agitation. It has been, as I have just said, troublesome. It has tried to worm its way into both the industrial and the political side of the Labour movement. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Australia?"] We will settle our own difficulties and leave Australia to settle her own. There was no life and there was no attractiveness in it. The trade union movement has been attacked in some way by it, and there have been disturbances within the movement which have been created by it. Nobody has been attacked more than us. What have the Government done to relieve the situation? You have gone about like a reckless old farmer who sees a field of seeded weeds alongside well-tilled arable land, and who shows his passion at the
    2084
    weeds by knocking their heads off and throwing the seed into the air to be distributed all over his ploughed field. That is what you have done.
    These men have gone to gaol. You have given them an advertisement. You have given an advertisement of their doctrines and, what is worse, by your action you have created a sort of reflex sympathy in the minds of thousands of men and women who never harboured that sympathy before, and who never would have done so but for you. My hon. friends in the trade union movement who have had to fight this thing will go back to their trade unions this week end, and they will find not that you have eased them of any of their troubles but that you have increased their troubles. When we go back to our labour movement and try to find what has happened as the result of the trial, we shall find that you have not eased but that you have increased our difficulties. Communism, these doctrines, that you declare to be subversive and which you prosecute, instead of being suppressed, instead of being weakened, and "instead of"—to use the words of the Home Secretary opposite—"people being ashamed of them"—have been strengthened and have been scattered broadcast, and the reasonable moral authorities and the political influences of society have now to do their best to undo the mischief that the Government have done by prosecuting these people. We have to set about undoing your evil.
    At the present moment, when the industrial situation is delicate enough in all conscience, you have imparted a passion and a feeling of class prejudice into the situation which I hope will bear no harvest, but if it does not it will be rather unnatural. No more clumsy handling of the situation could have been made from that point of view, in the present sore state of the body politic, so fevered and so sore that if you touch it the whole body twists and twinges in pain. At that moment, and under these conditions, you have chosen to prosecute these people, not for acts, not for disorder, but primarily and characteristically for opinions, for speeches, for doctrines. You conducted the trial as you did the General Election. Even the "Times," which very rarely agrees with us, referred yesterday to:
    "The most improper whoop over the arrest of his still unconvicted Communists."

    2085
    That is a reference to the Home Secretary. He whooped, he swore in 1912. He has whooped in 1925, and on both occasions he was an aider and a better of sedition. He said on the eve of the trial, or whilst the trial was going on, speaking at Isleworth:
    "When the trial is over, those of you who are Communists will be ashamed of yourselves."
    How did he know? Was he in touch with the Judge? [Interruption.]
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to impute motives to any hon. or right hon. Member on the opposite side?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the Rule were strictly observed, there would be a great change in the tone of our Debates.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. MacDONALD: Was he, in touch with the Judge? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame! "] If a statement is made by just an ordinary back bencher that when the trial was over such and such a thing would happen, nobody will think anything about it. It is a good piece of political exaggeration and anticipation. But the right hon. Gentleman is not a back bencher. He is the head of the Department. He is the Home Secretary, and what business has he got a day or perhaps two days before the judgment was delivered to anticipate what it would be— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—and to use language that carried the conviction or suggestion that he knew what it was to be? That is my point. I know perfectly well that he has no business to say things in such a form. The right hon. Gentleman has been taking a very prominent position in all this. The only person who could say with authority and in the confident way and language that the right hon. Gentleman used, surely either was playing false with his audience and just tickling them and using what is perfectly legitimate back bench play, but for a Home Secretary to say that is a very, very serious thing, and indicates the sedition-monger mind.
    There is the situation. I do care for opinions, I do care for the publication of opinion, I do care for the steady evolution and change of the institutions of my country, and therefore, right to
    2086
    the marrow of my bones, I object to the proceedings which the Government have taken. I think it is a political trial, inspired by political motives. Old ladies must be frightened in order that young Tories may be elected. An asset far too valuable to be allowed to disappear is the Communist party, an asset to the Tory party, and you cannot get on without it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor could you."] No Communism; no Tory Government! It is a modern variation of "No Bishop; no King." So we are going to have a very amusing scene to-night. We are going to have the Tory party, the sedition-mongers of 1912, who did not only talk sedition but practised it, who did not only say, "In this event or that event," but who said, "Disobey your orders, march in the other direction, when the loyal general says' ' to the right you turn to the left." All was prepared. Ambulances, medical staffs, gun running, everything to the last button. And there they are, a large number of them active participants in those events, every one of them beholden to the party which was responsible, and they are going to march into the Lobby in favour of constitutional action.
    The newspapers to-morrow morning will say we are a seditious and unconstitutional party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I knew they would, and on the question of opinion which has been fought and on the question of publications that are diminishing in numbers and on the question of a campaign that has been already met, these lovers of constitutionalism, for political purposes, are going to vote in favour of a prosecution that has increased the power of a weak society and has spread ideas, which to me are subversive, much further than if they had held their hands.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I was going to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reference to my recent illness and to assure him, I will not say it took away the bitterness of a party speech, but that it was one of those kindly things which we recognise in politics, for though we may be bitterly opposed we are human beings on both sides. The right hon. Gentleman has divided his speech into two parts, the first dealing with the question of freedom of speech and prosecution,

    2087
    and the second with an attack upon myself for speeches I made in past years. The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to use those speeches against me. One particular speech with which he made eloquent play and which was delivered in 1912 or 1913, when I was speaking on the Irish question, has been quoted before in this House by one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters. But I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman did it much better. I do not think anybody could take greater advantage of a speech which made me feel, as the right hon. Gentleman castigated me, sorry I had made it. There are very few of us who, in our long political career have not sometimes used, may I say, a "damn," for which we are afterwards sorry. It is probably common on both sides of the House. I should like to say this in regard to that speech. I at all events was not involved in any of the activities that he mentioned. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not know about that."] You do know it if I say so, and I do say it. I was not involved in any of the activities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, though I frankly admit that I made that speech. That was the only reference I have been able to find in any of my speeches on Ireland dealing with that question and at all events it was not seditious. I did not ask the Army not to turn its bayonets or its guns upon myself or to turn them upon their officer? or anything of that kind. What I said was, "fire and I will take the consequences."
    I will refer to another speech of mine which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, the speech which I made on the eve of the prosecution, a speech which the "Times" referred to as "a most improper whoop," a speech in regard to which I have been attacked in a good many Liberal papers, the "Manchester Guardian," the "Daily News" and others, for having made. I took the trouble to get what I believed to be a verbatim record of the speech from a local newspaper. It was not a party meeting at all, as the right hon. Gentleman stated. He was right. It was an operatic meeting in my own constituency.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Gilbert and Sullivan.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is what I said on the night those men were arrested:
    "Sir William said he was not there to talk politics, but there was one thing they might like to know, that that morning warrants were applied for against leaders of the Communist party and several of them were now in custody."
    That was the whole statement I made.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. It was at the Hounslow Dramatic Society, and the words are given as:
    "I believe the greater part of the audience will be pleased to hear that warrants were issued and in the majority of cases have been executed for a certain number of notorious Communists."
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have here what I believe to be a verbatim, and it is a very long report from a local paper and it says here:
    "They might like to know."
    That was the only statement I made. The right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite will at least not condemn me very much for having made that statement, if they remember the time— and I have looked up the details—when Mr. Gladstone, their great Leader, had considerable trouble with Mr. Parnell and how he went down to Leeds in 1881 and made a speech there. He there gave very serious notice—and that was on the 8th October—to Mr. Parnell, that the resources of civilisation were not exhausted. Everyone remembers that speech.
    They remember, further, that four days after, on the 12th, at the Guildhall, in the City of London, Mr. Gladstone then and there announced, amidst great cheers, the arrest of Mr. Parnell. At all events I had some precedent for making a mere statement, as I did, that these men had been arrested. However, that was only a part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and was personal to myself. The more important part of his speech, and the part on which he really founded his case against the Government, was that we were endeavouring, by the action that we took in the prosecution of these Communists, to stifle freedom of speech, that we were prosecuting them for their opinion and not for their acts. I would like, if I may,

    2089
    to state exactly what I deem to be the position in regard to freedom of speech in this country.
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is, and there can be, no such thing as a general freedom of speech. There must be limits to the freedom. A general freedom of speech is obviously impossible. For instance, no one has the right to utter openly in freedom of speech libels on other people. That would be impossible. No one has the right openly to incite to crime. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is licence!"] I agree. I am trying to address a reasoned argument to the House in regard to the limits of freedom of speech. It was upon that, that the reasoned part of the right hon. Gentlemen's speech depended. The other part, with regard to myself, was interesting, but the reasoned part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech depended upon whether or not we had taken proceedings which infringed the rights of freedom of speech in this country. There can be no freedom of speech in which you incite to assault the police, or to assassinate your political opponent. Everyone will agree with me so far. There must be limits. The "right of freedom of speech" is a compendious term which means really a limited right within the provisions of the law of the land. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me there. There must be limits to liberty. As an hon. Member said just now, unfettered liberty leads to licence, and I would add that unfettered licence leads to revolution. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be the most absolute freedom of opinion in this country. I say that advisedly. No one can be prosecuted for the holding of an opinion. You may hold any opinion that you like in regard to King, Lords, Commons or any part of the Constitution You may hold it; there is no law against it; there is no possible prosecution for holding that opinion. You may also express your opinion on certain terms. There is complete freedom for discussion, freedom for expression of your opinion, provided that the opinions are not expressed in such terms and in such circumstances as to incite to the crime of violence or to crimes against the community.
    There is the utmost freedom in England to-day—after the prosecution as there
    2090
    was before—to advocate an alteration of the Constitution, freedom to advocate a complete alteration of the basis of our Constitution, freedom to advocate the setting up of different principles. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) asked me this afternoon, in regard to the trial which has just taken place, whether it was a crime to advocate certain opinions which he set out in his question—the alteration of the whole economic system, the alteration of the law of the land. My reply to him is that it is not criminal to do that in this country, and the decision in the case of the Communists has made no possible difference in the law or in the Constitution in regard to that question. But it has always been a crime in this country, and it is still a crime in this country, to advocate the upsetting of, or to attempt to upset the Constitution by violence or unconstitutional means. That is the real difference. These men were not prosecuted for opinions, but for an. attempt, as I will show later, to alter the Constitution by violent and unconstitutional means. I want to be quite clear on this point, because it really is a very important point, having regard to a great deal that has been said both by the right hon. Gentleman and by newspapers in this controversy. I hope the House will forgive me if I read a statement of the law by an authority who would be recognised on the opposite side—by Lord Erskine in his defence of Thomas Paine when prosecuted in regard to "The Rights of Man." We know that that case is really a classical case, and that it embodies the law as it was then, and as I think it is to-day. Lord Erskine said:
    "The proposition which I mean to maintain is that every man, not intending to mislead, but seeking to enlighten others with what his own reason and conscience, however erroneously, have dictated to him as truth, may address himself to the universal reason of a whole nation, either upon the subject of Governments in general, or upon that of our own particular country— that he may analyse the principles of its constitution—point out its errors and defects—examine and publish its corruptions— warn his fellow-citizens against their ruinous consequences—and exert his whole faculties in pointing out the most advantageous changes in establishments which he considers to be radically defective, or sliding from their object by abuse. All this every subject of this country has a right to do, if he contemplates only what he thinks would be for its advantage, and but seeks to

    2091
    change the public mind by the conviction which flows from reasonings dictated by conscience."
    I agree with the whole of that statement by Lord Erskine, and I am sure that everyone on the other side will agree also. I hope they will agree equally with what Lord Erskine said further:
    "If indeed he … holds out to individuals that they have a right to run before the public mind in their conduct; that they may oppose by contumacy or force what private reason only disapproves; that they may disobey the law, because their judgment condemns it; or resist the public will, because they honestly wish to change it— be is then a criminal upon every principle of rational policy, as well as upon the immemorial precedents of English justice."
    That is the classical definition, and I agree with it. His Majesty's Government agrees with that definition. Now let us see how that agrees with the position in those recent cases. Those men were. not prosecuted for their opinions. They were prosecuted—to quote the indictment— for—
    "(1) Conspiring on certain dates to publish and utter seditious libels and words; (2) conspiring to incite persons to commit breaches of the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1707; (3) conspiracy to endeavour to seduce from their duty persons serving His Majesty's Forces to whom might come certain publications, pamphlets and books, and to incite them to mutiny."
    That was the charge in these cases. If I may say so with very great respect, the Judge gave a perfectly fair summing up; he gave the jury an opportunity of saying that if these men had been prosecuted for opinion they should go free. Before returning a verdict of guilty the jury was to be
    "satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants had conspired unlawfully together to publish seditious libels or to incite persons to breaches of the Mutiny Act or to felony."
    There were three tests, and I apologise to the House for reading them. There were three tests which the jury had to apply:
    "First, was the object of the documents to lead to civil war? Second, did the language used imply that it was lawful and commendable to employ physical force in any manner or form against the Government. Third, did the language used imply that it was lawful and commendable to employ physical force in any manner or form against the Government, and did the language used tend to subvert the Government and the laws of the Empire. If they found
    2092
    that the books contained nothing but innocent propaganda, they were to find the defendants not guilty. If, however, the jury came to the conclusion that there was in the defendants' doctrines and statements of objects that which would lead to civil war, or that which implied that it was lawful and commendable to employ physical force against the Government of the King, or that the language tended to subvert the Government and the laws of the Empire, it would be their duty to find the prisoners guilty."
    Surely that was a fair statement of the law. It was a statement of the law founded on Lord Erskine's statement, which I have read. It is perfectly fair to say that these men were not prosecuted for opinion. I do not think anyone will suggest, after what I have read, that the summing-up of the Judge was otherwise than absolutely fair. The hon. and learned Gentleman who was in the case—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Captain FitzRoy): I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I have allowed him to go so far in his statement as to the exact summing-up of the Judge, but I cannot allow him to make any comment upon it.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree. I am sorry that I went, perhaps, a little outside what I ought to have done. I am entitled, of course, to say that the verdict of the jury, after having heard the summing up, which I have read, was a verdict of guilty. Twelve citizens found the prisoners guilty. That is the justification for the action of the Government. I again go back and I say to hon. Members opposite. I say to the Communist party themselves, that it is open to them to endeavour to change the Constitution of the country to what they believe to be a better Constitution. The ballot box is at their disposal. But leading doctrines of the Communist party undoubtedly state that it is hopeless to attempt to get the changes they desire by means of the ballot box. The right hon. Gentleman has told us quite frankly this afternoon that the great hulk of the Labour party, probably the whole of the Labour party, are against these doctrines, and that, therefore, it is quite hopeless for the Communist party to attempt legally to effect their object of changing the Constitution by means of the ballot box. The Communists have

    2093
    told us over and over again—you have only to read their pamphlets and papers —that their only chance of getting what they consider to be a proper Constitution is to provoke disorder, to weaken the government of the day, and gradually to bring about a revolution by civil war.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Where have they said that? Give us some evidence, not a false statement.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to speak at too great length.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Give us the evidence.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is a great deal I want to say.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Give us the evidence. Do not make a bald statement like that.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Gentleman presses me I will tell him what I will do. I will publish some of their pamphlets. I have such a mass of material to deal with that I do not want to make too long a speech. I think it is only fair that the House and the country should realise some of the matter which I have in my possession in regard to this. I will see whether I cannot place a White Paper on the Table of the House. I want to put before the House clearly the real necessity for preserving the right type of freedom of speech in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right type?"] Yes, freedom of speech as allowed by law and as laid down by Lord Erskine; freedom of speech which gives the right to a full propagation of your opinion, provided you do not try to damage the Constitution. It is only by the Constitution that you can have freedom of speech. You do not get it in "Russia; there is no freedom of speech there at all.
    The right hon. Gentleman in his speech rather suggested that we should not take any notice of these people, because they were so small. I am not quite sure that is really our difficulty. After all, the right hon. Gentleman took notice of them when one of the very documents which was prosecuted upon in this case, was prosecuted upon by the right hon. Gentleman himself and his colleagues. They came to the conclusion that it was desirable to prosecute on that document a year ago. It is quite true they withdraw that prosecution. I am not complaining of the withdrawal of the
    2094
    prosecution, but I want to see why it was withdrawn. It was not withdrawn because the men were not guilty. Lock at the right hon. Gentleman's speech in this House on the 8th October last year, and you will find quite clearly that in his view the thing was, itself, a breach of the law. But then he went on to say, that it was not desirable to prosecute and the hon. and learned Gentleman the then Attorney-General in his speeches in this House quite clearly said that he had authorised and directed the prosecution of Mr. Campbell last year, and he believed the matter in question to be a breach of the law. That being so, that man having been let off, and the prosecution having been withdrawn last year, it surely was the duty of any Government to consider what was going on, to watch the actions of this party week by week, and month by month, to see what they were doing and how far they were going, and if they were really going as far as some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends seem to have thought. I may quote the statement made by Mr. Cramp at the Liverpool Conference of the Labour party:—
    "The road upon which they would lead the international proletariat ends in national disaster. The peace they would achieve by their policy of world revolution and armed force is a peace of utter desolation and universal ruin."
    That is the view of one of the leaders of the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the view on this side."] I accept the statement of hon. Gentlemen opposite that their party do disagree with this policy. I have been taunted to-day with my action. I take the responsibility of saying that His Majesty's Government, after that prosecution last year, were bound to have regard to what was going on during the current year, and as Home Secretary I was bound to have regard to the reports of speeches and documents which came to me, week by week and month by month, in regard to this agitation. I was bound to have regard to the efforts which were made to incite the public at various places like Hyde Park Corner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and I am going to tell hon. Members why I thought so. It was because I said, "These things are not worth taking notice of, these men are simply sports, but there must be men behind them; there must be men who are leaders of this organisation; there must be men who

    2095
    are banded together to provide the material for these outside people; there must be men determined to destroy our Constitution." On the information I had, I was bound to take steps, otherwise you would have the right to say to me, "If Mr. Cramp were right, and if you knew all this, why did you not take notice of it?"
    In regard to the prosecution, I have told the House frankly what I did. When these things came into me, I consulted the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecution. I put the matter before them and said: "It is for you to decide whether the is a case or not; it is not for the Home Secretary. These have come to me in the ordinary course, through those who are charged with the carrying out of law and order in this country. I put these documents before you and I leave them." I left them, and they decided in the ordinary way that a prosecution should take place. That prosecution was never interfered with, in one jot or in one iota, by any member of His Majesty's Government. It was left to the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecution to conduct that prosecution, and, as I have said, they were justified by the verdict of the jury.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was there any Cabinet decision to proceed with the prosecution in the first place?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There was no Cabinet decision.
    Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman in his speech referred to the fact that there was complete unanimity of his colleagues in this matter.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course the hon. and gallant Gentleman perfectly well knows that I should be in touch with my colleagues. We are in touch with very many matters, day by day and all day long, as Cabinet Ministers, and I am prepared to say that my colleagues in the Cabinet, if there had been a Cabinet decision, would not have disavowed the action taken. If I may turn to another point which has been raised, I will give the right hon. Gentleman some explanation which he seemed to want in regard to the question
    2096
    of Moscow. Freedom of speech—and I want to make this perfectly clear—is one thing, but paying hired speakers, organised by a body outside this country in the sheer, definite determination to break up the Constitution of the country is quite another thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "You never proved it!"] It was not necessary to prove it in the case, but it is desirable politically, here and now, to show what the position was. These men were prosecuted not because they were in touch with Moscow, but I am here to-day to say that it is undesirable that any portion of the body politic should be carrying out an organisation in this country and receiving money from another country and instructions from another country in order to destroy the Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me on this matter, and I am going to read one or two documents to the House. I will read, in the first place, a letter from Moscow, from the Central Committee of the Communist International, dated 10th October, 1924, in reference to the General Election of last year. It is from Kuusinan, Secretary of the C.C.C.I., and it is addressed to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain in London:
    "Dear Comrades,—Herewith a copy of the instructions adopted by the Executive to-day which have already been sent you by cable. We are also sending to you the speeches of Comrades Zinoviev and Bukharin at to-day's session of the Presidium. The instructions given in these speeches should also be considered as instructions from the Executive to your Party."
    Here are the orders of the Central Committee to the Communist Party of Great Britain from the Executive—that is the Russian Executive.
    Mr. BROMLEY: No, no! [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, and I therefore ignore the discourtesy of hon. Members. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will only be too pleased to answer my question. I am certain he does not wish to misrepresent the matter. He does not, I hope, wish to infer to the House that the documents he quotes are from any part of the Russian Government.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really thought I had made it plain. They are from the Central Executive of the Com-

    2097
    munist International at Moscow, and on that Executive the leading members of the Moscow Government sit.
    Mr. BROMLEY: No.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You are misinformed.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Let me go back to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he was in office and when we were dealing with the Zinoviev letter. The Foreign Office wrote to M. Rakovsky on the 24th October, 1924, when the late Government was in Office:
    "No one who understands the constitution and the relationships of the Communist International will doubt its intimate connection and contact with the Soviet Government. No Government will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders subjects of the former to plot and plan revolutions for its overthrow."
    Mr. MacDONALD: As a matter of accuracy, that does not prove that members of the Soviet Government are members of the executive—that the two bodies are organically connected. As a matter of fact, they are not.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but I must give a direct contradiction to the statement that members of the Soviet Government are not members of the executive of the International at Moscow. I assure hon. Members that they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them!"] There is Zinoviev. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There is Rykoff. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There seems to be very remarkable knowledge among hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the case that M. Vandervelde, the Belgian Minister, is a member of the Second International. There are lots of Internationals.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I get on with the point with which I was dealing?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Rykoff is not a member of the executive.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be allowed to proceed without further interruption.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Here are the orders:
    "The Imperialist character of the Government should be unmasked. A bitter fight should be carried on against MacDonald's policy in China, India, and Egypt; against the League of Nations."
    Mr. MacDONALD: Hear, hear!
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe right hon. Gentleman cheers, but I want him to realise that this was the policy of the Communist party at the last Election and that it was dictated direct from Moscow. Here are the instructions for conducting the Election campaign:
    "Every candidate should distribute and sign Campbell's appeal. Campbell should issue another manifesto to the soldiers and sailors. Roy should be put forward as candidate."
    Everyone knows that Roy was the Indian candidate—
    "If possible he should be brought into the election campaign. Send him a telegram. … Further instructions follow."
    I have not got the further instructions.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Why did you not put that in at the trial?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Only this year, in July, the secretariat of the Communist party here censured one of their own members, Mr. Dutt, for something he had done. I need not trouble the House with what he had done—I do not know that it was anything very bad— and he writes to them on the 15th July of this year:
    "I was not aware that any arrangement in a loose and irregular fashion was made with me by Comrade Arnot,' as I received my instructions to make the temporary change of occupation from the proper authorities of both Arcos and the Delegation."
    There is the most complete personal connection between the Communist party here and the Communist party in Russia. Nearly all of them have been over there. McManus was over there for three or four months at a time, and to show the terms on which they were, here is a letter which evidently passed across the Council Chamber while they were sitting together in Council. It was, I think, in 1924 when McManus was there, and it is signed by the party.
    "Comrade McManus. Zinoviev and myself go to Caucasus over-morrow. Will you with us? Wi kan not understand as neces-

    2099
    sary differences in the English party without the language. Wenn you kan not, you must recomand to us one English comrade for this task. This is conditio sine qua non for our effective work in the English question."
    "Yes, I will come, but it will take a few more days to clear up Delegation business. Can I follow you on Wednesday? Yours, McManus."
    "We can go not overmorrow, but on Thursday."
    There is the most complete evidence of an interlocking arrangement between the Communist party here and the Communist party in Moscow. But it goes a little further. Four or five years ago a Communist named Emery was prosecuted here for breaking into a munition factory at Birmingham and stealing arms. He was committed for trial, and let out on bail, and he disappeared. This is how he disappeared. The Communist party here gave him two letters, one dated 24th February, 1922, to Comrade Racosi:
    "This is to certify that Comrade Walter Thomas James is a member of the Communist party of Great Britain and is sent by the Executive Committee of the party to Russia. As Comrade James will have to remain in Russia for a considerable length of time, we suggest that he be utilised for any work the Comintern may see fit. … Until he has found work we request that he be taken care of. (Signed) McManus."
    Two months earlier comes another letter:
    "The bearer of this letter. Comrade J. H. Emery, has been a member of the Communist party of Great Britain since its formation. He has been sent to Russia by the party, and owing to his activities in the revolutionary movement has been persecuted by the British police and is unable to return to England for at least several years. Comrades are, therefore, asked to render him assistance and effectively use his abilities on behalf of the Communist International."
    This very year, 6th July, 1925, he is still there, and there comes a letter from the Communist International to say he is there, and it is pointed out that he can return to England whenever he likes. All that I can say is that I should welcome his return. Again, a young man named Comrade Fox, a clever young fellow, who had been to Oxford University, in June of Was year was sent to Moscow to learn the work, and he gets to work very soon indeed, because he has only been there a fortnight when he writes:
    "Dear Comrade,—I have been working here for a week now and am beginning to
    2100
    see daylight. At present I am concentrating my work on India under the instructions of Vasilieff, who is in charge during Petroff's absence. I am also trying to get a general idea of the situation in North Africa, Egypt, and the Near East."
    Mr. LANSBURY: What about Peru?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have got a lot about the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), but not about Peru. It is a small matter, however, and I will not go on with it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Having said you are going to give it, you had better do it. I do not mind.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has challenged us on the subject of money, it is perfectly clear that there are very small subscriptions indeed, but there is admittedly an expenditure of some £12,000 in the year. There is more than that. There are several letters referring to payments from Moscow here. Here is a copy of a letter dated 17th January, 1924, to a comrade, who is very well known in Russia as one of the. leaders of the Red International of Labour Unions. He is, I think, the President. The letter reads:
    "You will see from the budget the total indebtedness of these bureaux is £257. Had we received the full amount promised us for the six months ending 31st December we would not be in this debt. As you remember, we Were promised £150 per month for the six months. That makes a total of £000. Then a further sum was promised, which we were informed was a separate allocation. The wages we were advised to pay these people were £25 per month, which makes a total of £300 for six months. The amount we ought to have received. therefore, was £1,200, but what we did receive was £757. I would strongly urge you to liquidate this debt and further the work of the bureaux by exhausting the rest of the Budget."
    Mr. MacDONALD: Was that sent to the Communist party?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was sent to the president of the Red International of Labour Unions.
    Mr. MacDONALD: He has not been prosecuted at all. That is a. totally different thing.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: But the right hon. Gentleman must know—if not, I can tell him—that the Red International

    2101
    of Labour Unions and all these other organisations are worked as one body both here and in Russia.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: We know far more about it than that.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Let me read a letter from the Communist party here, written by Inkpin to his brother, then in Russia, about finance:
    "I may also mention that the question of the grants to the districts is also affected by an instruction from the Comintern to the effect that one-half of the present year's allocation—the total allocation for the year is £5,000—is to be allocated to district party organisations and to the ' Workers' Weekly."
    There is a perfectly clear statement to his own brother in Moscow, that they were getting an allocation of £5,000 from the Comintern, and that the Comintern gave instructions how that £5,000 was to be allocated, and how it was to be used.
    Miss WILKINSON: Is it illegal to receive money?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HCKS: No, but I am saying that it is highly undesirable that there should be a party in this country trying to worm itself into the trade unions of the country, receiving money and instructions from a similar party in a foreign country.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: That is the affair of the trade unions.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Let me give one further extract from a letter dated 17th July of this year to the Secretariat of the Communist International of Moscow from the Secretariat of the Communist party here:
    "Our political bureau further wishes me to direct your attention to the somewhat unnecessary references made in the letter such as transmitting money by the secret channel, and to suggest that comrades responsible be warned of the necessity of being more discreet in their communications."
    [Laughter.] It is idle for hon. Members opposite to affect hilarity. I am not blaming the members of the Communist party. I am blaming England for allowing itself to be duped and to be dependent on instructions from Moscow and on money from Moscow. Before I finish, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley challenged me to read a letter regarding himself, and he will forgive me if I read one to the secretary of the Communist party here, dated 19th September,
    2102
    1925, dealing with the Irish question. I think the hon. Member must have received some money, but I am not suggesting improperly, of course. They write:
    "When money has been sent to help the famine area, the British party, instead of using it for the Workers' Union in Ireland, distributed it through Lansbury, a hypocrite."
    Forgive me.
    Mr. LANSBURY: That is all right.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It goes on to say:
    "He presented it to the Soup Kitchen Brigade."
    6.0 P.M.
    The hon. Member and I have fought here side by side, and I want to let him know that these men are not really friends of his. They are not friends of the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know it!"] We want the Labour party to realise what is being done by the Moscow Brigade here. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know it!"] In that case, if you know it, why are you complaining of our position to-day? If you taka the same view as I take, and as, I think, a great many of your leaders do, that this is a conspiracy in this country, that it is harmful not only to us as a Conservative party, but harmful also to the best interests of the Labour party, if it be harmful to you, why not join with mo in condemning it? If it be harmful to the best interests of the trade unionists of this country, as I believe it to be, then support the action that the Government has taken, rather than come here this afternoon, as you have come here, and try to injure us, to blame us and at the same time to blame the victims of our policy. You cannot have it both ways. You must make up your minds whether this thing is a desirable thing in the interest of the country or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your action is undesirable; that is the question."] I am trying to show that if this conspiracy is harmful; if this is a conspiracy with foreign money, with foreign instructions to do harm in this country—they are entitled, I agree, as long as they use their opinions in a legitimate way to hold those opinions, to promulgate those opinions, and we have no remedy, but the moment they go further, the moment they translate those opinions into the action for which they were found guilty by a

    2103
    jury of our country, I say to hon. Members opposite it is your duty, your interest, as trade unionists, to join with us in stamping out this conspiracy, and seeing that the law of the land, as it has been for the last 150 years, is properly, fairly and honestly administered.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I hope you, Sir, will allow me to have an opportunity of replying to the Home Secretary's statement.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: The Home Secretary has, necessarily, occupied some time in laying this matter before the House, and I am sure no one makes any complaint of it, but I must endeavour to set this example, at least, that the time I will occupy in the few remarks I wish to make, shall be strictly limited, and I will undertake that by a quarter-past six I will have said what I have to say. I cannot help thinking the Home Secretary has not addressed himself entirely to the very big question of public policy, but let me at once concede to the Home Secretary three or four perfectly plain facts which it does not appear to me any sensible man ought to seek to dispute. It seems to me perfectly clear that these men had a fair trial. It is certain that they got a vastly fairer trial than they would get in any community that ever has enjoyed Communist doctrine. It seems to me perfectly clear that they were properly convicted, and it seems to me perfectly clear that the defence had, as it ought to have had, very complete latitude.
    Speaking for myself, and, I think, for a great many Members in the House who are for some reason perturbed at this class of prosecution, I do not feel the slightest sympathy with the men. I regard their doctrines as utterly abhorrent, and my doubts in the matter—because I have some doubts—are not due to the smallest scrap of sympathy with them, or the smallest desire to shield people who commit crimes, but there is a circumstance about recent events which is undoubtedly of great gravity, and I hope the Home Secretary will excuse me for saying that he does not seem in his speech to have dealt with it. I repeat the language of a very well-known Lord Chief Justice, when I say it is not enough that justice in this country should be impartially administered. It is further
    2104
    necessary, when a prosecution is determined upon, that everybody, and most of all those who are connected with the administration of justice, should so act as to make it appear even to bigoted and prejudiced persons, if they can, that justice is evenly administered. I believe it is, but it is quite certain that some events have happened in recent times, and some speeches have been made just before and during this trial, which do give a handle to people who desire to suggest that justice is unequal, to quote authority in favour of their views.
    The right hon. Gentleman has been regaling us with a number of extracts from intercepted correspondence. So far as I can see, he has, for the most part, been putting before the House material which the Attorney-General did not consider it worth while to put before the Court. Now that I have heard the sort of stuff which the right hon. Gentleman has examined, it was very natural and appropriate that he should have made his references to Communists at a comic opera society. The impression left upon my mind is not so much that they are criminals, but that they are lunatics. While I quite agree, that even if a man is a lunatic, you must take proper steps to stop him if he is going to commit serious crime, it is really a very grave matter of public policy what the circumstances are in which you ought to feel bound to prosecute. I would say frankly —and I expose myself, no doubt, to the ridicule of many Members here—that I am not able to vote for the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, because I really do not think, so far as regards the Attorney-General's decision, whether you think it is right or wrong, that it is one of those matters which it would be right in Parliament in the circumstances to condemn by a Vote of Censure. I do not think so.
    I have often said in this House, both as Attorney-General and since, that it is only in the very last resort that this sort of prosecution should be adopted, and I am bound to say I did expect, when I heard this prosecution was undertaken, that we were going to have proved matters far more immediately significant than anything that seems to have been proved. Still, it is perfectly true that sedition may reach a point at which it is necessary to prosecute and if anybody

    2105
    suggests that the decision to undertake this prosecution was arrived at fey the Attorney-General and his expert assistants on other than grounds of public policy, I do not believe it, and, therefore, I will not, for my part, associate myself with such a Vote of Censure. But I must say, if anything could have been done to make this present situation one in which those who really respect the British traditions of free speech have reason to be uneasy, it is some of the things the Home Secretary has been doing. The right hon. Gentleman offered his apology for some speech he had made at the time of the Ulster revolt, and explained to us— I have no doubt correctly—that he was not involved in those seditious and treasonable activities. No, but a great many people were. I wonder if the Home Secretary does not think those activities were seditious. I have no doubt, at the same time, it was a very grave question of public policy whether it was to the public interest that attempts should be made to prosecute, and it always is, and there is no greater nonsense talked about the Attorney-General's duty than the suggestion that in all cases the Attorney-General ought to decide to prosecute merely because he thinks there is what lawyers call "a case." It is not true, and no one who has held that office supposes it is.
    I understand the duty of the Attorney-General to be this. He should absolutely decline to receive orders from the Prime Minister, or Cabinet or anybody else that he shall prosecute. His first duty is to see that no one is prosecuted with all the majesty of the law unless the Attorney-General, as head of the Bar, is satisfied that a case for prosecution lies against him. He should receive orders from nobody. But that is very different from saying that the Attorney-General ought in all cases to ask nobody else's view, because he thinks there is a case to institute a prosecution without finding out what his colleagues or the Government think. That is a ridiculous proposition. If the Leader of the Opposition at the General Election were to make a seditious speech, does anyone mean to tell me a Conservative Attorney-General would start a prosecution against him without consulting the Cabinet? Of course, he would not; and, indeed, the other view has been proclaimed by the present Prime Minister
    2106
    himself. I have before me his statement, which he made on the 18th December last year, when he said, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that
    "When the proposed prosecution is of such a character that matters of public policy are, or may be, involved, it is the duty of the Attorney-General to inform himself of the views of the Government or of the appropriate Minister before coming to a decision.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1924; col. 1214, Vol. 179.]
    Of course it is, and I lose patience when I am told that the prosecution of Communists is, as a matter of fact, a thing that the Cabinet, whether a Labour Cabinet or the colleagues of the Attorney-General, know nothing about. I am confident that the Attorney-General would never undertake a prosecution, whatever anybody asked him to do, unless he thought the prosecution was justified, but I should regard him not as a good Attorney-General but as a fool if he were to start on his own motion prosecutions which involve grave matters of public concern—treason, sedition, corruption, and the like—I should regard it as a very grave mistake if he did such a thing without knowing that, in the view of his colleagues, public policy was not offended by undertaking such prosecution.
    Is it really clear that public policy was served by this prosecution? That is what I doubt, and what makes me doubt it very much more—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, because we are all very grateful to him for having come down here, in view of his recent illness, to stand fairly and squarely before the House—but if really he will look back in a few years' time, I think he will be disposed to make the same apology for some of the speeches he has been making during the last month as he makes now for a speech he made some years ago. Is it really the way to satisfy a possibly suspicious, credulous, biassed opinion in this country that justice is fairly administered between all sorts of people, that, after making his announcement of the prosecution, he goes on to say, in effect, in another speech, that he can hardly contain himself until the verdict is out, and then he will say what he wishes to say, and in a third speech that what is wanted is a "touch of Mussolini."
    The Home Secretary is entirely wrong when he quotes the precedent of Mr.

    2107
    Gladstone. What Mr. Gladstone did in 1881 has nothing to do with this. Let us get a bit of history right. What Mr. Gladstone did was this: He did not announce that judicial proceedings were about to take place against so-and-so. He announced a purely administrative act which was finished and done with. He announced that Mr. Parnell had been detained under the Crimes Act, which was very like the proceeding of detaining anyone under the Defence of the Realm Act during the War. It did not involve any judicial proceeding at all.
    The first and most obvious duty of a responsible Minister, if a proceeding of this sort is started, is so to conduct himself in his public declarations as to show that his view remains as calm and unprejudiced as that of the Judge himself until the case is over. I must say that I think that all Members, in all parts of the House, who really prize the traditions of free speech and constitutional liberty, have very grave complaint because of the most unfortunate way the Home Secretary has expressed himself. In my concluding remarks—for I desire to keep my promise—let me point out particularly that there is really a very serious general public question here. Sedition, in one sense of the word, is a charge that can be made under the Criminal Law of England against all sorts of people who are asserting all sorts of unpopular opinions. No less an authority than Professor Dicey pointed that out long ago. Let me read one sentence:
    "The legal definition of sedition might easily be used to assist to check a great deal of what is ordinarily considered allowable discussion, and would, if rigidly enforced, be inconsistent with the prevailing forms of political agitation."
    I do not believe that the cause of law and order, and the benevolent intentions of the Home Secretary towards the Labour party, are necessarily promoted by such prosecutions. If the right hon. Gentleman had got up and said: "I have to point out that the evidence given at the trial against these men established something far beyond any allowable expression of opinion"—on that he would have made a relevant case. I rather suspect that the case may still be made, and I wait to hear it; because I certainly do not pronounce judgment without hearing it. But the Home Secretary has not
    2108
    made such a statement. On the contrary, he has indicated to everyone the belief that certain opinions, idiotic, apparently expressed in the most childish way, false and ridiculous doctrines, that these idiotic opinions are to be pilloried, and that there must be a new campaign sweeping through the country in favour of Conservatism against everybody else. What he ought to do is to realise that the service of democracy and the service of public education essentially depend on leaving things of this sort —if they can be left—to be dealt with in the open, rather than by driving them underground. It may be said that my conclusion is neither one thing nor the other, but I am stating to the House of Commons most frankly my own feeling. I am most profoundly disturbed at the way in which this matter has been bungled, because, though I am not prepared to say that a prosecution having been determined upon as a matter of discretion has not been properly conducted, the conclusion of it was not the only one which any unprejudiced man should be prepared to accept.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: The speech that the Home Secretary has made in reply to the Motion has rather created a tendency to cover up the main issue, and take little items and details for this House to discuss which are really of no matter. There is a profound belief that by the experience we get when we come into this House we become quite a different species of man. There are people outside who are upholders of rigid standards of free speech, and they seem to understand what it means, rather than from the circuitous definitions that we have heard here this afternoon. We have heard quotations from Lord Justice This and Lawyer That, but we know that lawyers are experts. We know that all experts do differ because they must differ from each other; quotations can be cited against one or other of the positions put forward ad libitum and they neither prove one thing nor the other. What was the last appeal of the Home Secretary? He was charging 12 Communists with conspiracy to subvert the constitution of the country. The constitution of the country, as explained by him, is centred and expressed in these Parliamentary institutions. The Parlia-

    2109
    mentary institutions of this country are run along party lines. It has been a charge that this was not a judicial trial; that it was not a legal trial; that it was a party trial. The Home Secretary has actually subverted the fundamental constitution of this Parliament by trying to eradicate a new political party and prevent it growing into opposition against his party.
    The right hon. Gentleman is so obsessed by this matter that he discloses his bias in the various indiscretionary speeches which he has made, and which show human weakness rather than wickedness. He appeals to the Labour party, and he says: "These stupid Communist fellows are a damned nuisance now to the old political parties. They are in our way. Let us enter into a general conspiracy to stifle and put them into prison, and so let this House endorse my action." The Home Secretary desires the Labour Members to enter into a conspiracy with the Tory party to keep this matter quiet. It is not merely a question of free speech acted upon by indiscretionary enthusiasm. Large numbers of people, not only in this country, but all over Europe, are beginning to maintain that purity of justice does not exist. I remember a Debate that I had not the privilege of attending, but I read it. I am speaking of October of last year, when the Labour party was charged by the Tory Opposition with a class bias in withdrawing the Campbell case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir It. Horne) then delivered a speech and in it was a passage in regard to the purity of justice. He said that one great-gift which Great Britain had given to the world was the gold mine of justice, and so on. It was then pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were millions existing in this country and that society was so constructed, or had so grown up, that class bias was inevitable.
    We do not charge hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, or the officers of the. Crown, with anything personal in this matter, but we do say that the whole system, political, economic, social, is so constructed that there is no purity of justice, and that it is class justice all the time. The Government produced documents and these were most emphasised by the Law Officers of the Crown. But these documents were printed and
    2110
    publicly circulated in 1920, 1921 and 1922. We had then at the head of the Government of this country the man who won the Great War. He could have quashed the Communist conspiracy if these documents had amounted to a serious subversion of the constituted1 authority of this country. Nothing was said. Nothing was done. The people of this country were left in the hands of the Coalition Government, then to the Government of Mr. Bonar Law, then to other Tory Governments, then to that of the Labour Party, and now to the present Government—so on right up to certain events last summer. It looked as if these documents were permissible to protect freedom of speech and the freedom of the expression of view. But when people put forward a programme of propaganda, when it begins to go forward and inconvenience the Government of the day, then they may be subjected to prosecution. I think we are all agreed that there is not one of us inside this House, or any intelligent man outside, who, perhaps, in certain of these circumstances might not be found guilty of breaking the law. I quite agree with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that the Home Secretary did not do his duty as he ought to have done. If you really make laws which permit of going into everybody's home and capturing everything there, then you may get a theory of guilt, and then you possibly will try to find out something backing up this imaginary theory of guilt on which you may prosecute a citizen.
    Where, in this matter, is the Cabinet? What is the Home Secretary for? What is Parliament for? Where is the political responsibility of Parliament? The Homo Secretary has copies of correspondence and these contain some painful allusions to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). There was the word "hypocrite" used. If I could get the use of the secret police force for a couple of months, if I raided the correspondence of leading Ministers of the Grown, I might discover some very interesting things and interesting phrases used by his present colleagues about the present Prime Minister. There is nothing very extraordinary about that. It does not prove that a grave crisis has arisen, and that the Home Secretary must go and prosecute people for it. I am perfectly sure

    2111
    that correspondence from a Tory club would furnish far worse examples than what we have heard to-day. People outside do sincerely believe that this is not only a party prosecution, but that the poor Communists have been made victims of the struggle in the Tory ranks by one party trying to make it possible by conspiracy and the carrying on of subversive propaganda in their own ranks to overthrow the Prime Minister. That may be right or wrong, but that is the suggestion conveyed by this prosecution. All the quotations given from the letters are really human quotations, such as could be found in the letters of men of all parties, of all politicians, of all commercial businesses, of all partners in a firm. There is nothing extraordinary about them— nothing to prove a grave crisis.
    The issues at the back of everything that the Home Secretary has said to-night are very grave issues for the citizens of this country. We know that one of the chief reasons which made the Communist-party, rather than any other political party, the object of persecution, or prosecution, or whatever you want to call it, was the fact of their headquarters as an international toeing situated in Russia, and having close association with and affiliation with the Third International. It is all very well to mislead the country, or to create an enthusiasm even on these benches, by using the word "Moscow." Where is the difference between the word "Moscow" and "London," or "Amsterdam," or "Berlin?" International bodies for Socialist purposes have existed for many years, and anyone who has any intelligent appreciation of what Socialism is and what it shall be as a practical doctrine for society, must understand that international organisation, international association, is absolutely inevitable. Such international association in itself proves nothing very grave, gives out no great dangers. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was suggesting or guessing—he was wrong in the guess, but he was guessing—that because of some members being on the Committee of the Third International, whose headquarters are in Moscow—just as the headquarters of the Second International are now in London and were once in Amsterdam—therefore the members of the Russian Government are also
    2112
    associated with it. As a. matter of fact, they are not, but even if they were, where is the harm? British Cabinet Ministers were members of the Second International, and are now Members of the Second International, which is an exactly parallel body. The two bodies may be antagonistic, hostile in their ideas appertaining to modes of operation and so on, but they are parallel bodies. Members of the British Government were honourably associated with the Second International. Would the German Government, or the Belgian Government, or the Italian Government now come forward, if some Socialist society in France or Italy or Belgium were carrying on a political propaganda which was becoming inconvenient to the Government of those countries, and say, "The British Government are conspiring to overthrow our Government?" As the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley says, our esteemed friend, Emile Vandervelde, who is to-day in London to sign the Pact —he is Foreign Secretary and represents the Belgian Government—is a member of the Second International. To-morrow the Socialist party here in Great Britain, which is affiliated with the Second International, may do something. Should we then go and fly at the throats of the Belgian Government and say, "Your Minister is associated with this organisation; there is a conspiracy on the part of the Belgian Government to overthrow the Government of England." [Interruption.] You may call it nonsense, but I say that the charge cannot be made. Because members of a certain political body are members of an international committee on which there are various nationalities, you cannot, in 1925, when the tendency of the whole world is towards forming international bodies, condemn that as a crime. You cannot condemn Governments because some members of those Governments may, as members of some political institution, become members of an international body. The League of Nations is getting on, and there are other international associations. There are chambers of commerce with international committees and international headquarters. There are mineowners' associations. There is the great oil trust, with international ramifications, and its agents and branches in Argentina or some other countries; and so on. You do not attack them, but

    2113
    you pick out the Socialist international movement because it happens to have its headquarters in Moscow. The Home Secretary has before him the information, I think, that though the headquarters may be in Russia, the Comintern, as we call it, or the Committee of the Third Internationale, is composed of men and women of all nationalities, and the Russian representatives on it do not always form even 15 or 20 per cent. of the whole Committee, they are always in a minority. The headquarters are at present kept in Russia for obvious reasons. That is the only country which accepts the right of existence of an anti-capitalist society and an anti-capitalist organisation.
    Mr. ERSKINE: That is why they are smashed up.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: It is perfectly obvious that such an international committee would not be allowed to carry on its work undisturbed and in a legitimate fashion if it were situated in any capitalist country. Now comes the question of the money. I say again to the Home Secretary that what he has read are words. He has read some words, but he has read no proof that money came— that such and such an amount of money came from such and such a source, and so on; and I still insist that it is certainly not wrong at all for the money to come if it comes from the central headquarters of the international body. There would be, of course, monetary relationships between the affiliated groups of international bodies. There would be money transactions between the headquarters of the League of Nations and various nations of the world. There would be money transactions with the central committee of the Second International also. The Home Secretary seems to have forgotten that as we have got the Socialist Second International and also a separate International Federation of Trade Unions, there is also similarly a quite separate Communist International and the Red International of the Trade Unions.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the hon. Member, as he has rather got away from my argument, would he think it desirable that a Member of this House should receive £300 for election purposes, and for the money to come from Russia?
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I will answer the question. I am very glad the Home Secretary has put forward his view. He again puts that question, not in an unfair manner but in that muddled manner in which he understands it. If a Member of this House receives £300 from Russia or from Italy or from China, from some organisation which has got no legitimate connection with that member, and for a definite purpose hostile to this country, then it is not desirable. But if there is a political body of an international character, with its international representatives, with its constitutional resolution that we all are to carry out our policy—not each one to suit himself, but. as it is decided by our international committee composed of all nationalities, a central body which runs a common policy in politics, and with common ideals for all countries associated with that international body—then I do put it to the Home Secretary that there is nothing morally or legally wrong in the exchange of money to the members from the central headquarters for the purpose of carrying out the party policy, a policy openly adopted by all the members concerned. If there were a secret organisation, if a member were not associated with any particular body at all, and that member, of British nationality, were receiving money from a foreign nationality without any real, legal, constitutional associateship between the two, that would be quite a different matter. If the members of an international organisation, by their own democratic vote say "We are tired"—you may call it foolish or lunatic or nice, I do not know, just as it may please you—if they say, right or wrong. "We are tired of the manner in which various labour organisations are carrying out their political propaganda, and we want the members of these political organisations in all countries to be all pledged to carry out a common policy which we believe is the most efficient policy for the common object of the Labour party, as well as the Communist party, the overthrow of the capitalist system—
    Mr. ERSKINE: By force.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: No, that is your interpretation. I am now answering the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I say that under those circum-

    2115
    stances, a common Parliamentary fund for Parliamentary election assistance from the headquarters of a political party is perfectly honourable, legitimate, fair and desirable. There is no difference between that and the Conservative party sitting in London, with a common fund, and sending money from it to one of their members somewhere in a remote part of this country, where that member may not be in a position to find his funds locally. It is exactly the same. If there was any secret association, if there were no open constitutional, legal, democratically-established relationship between the central committee and the various members, I would adopt the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but I put it to him that though at the present moment the Communists may be unpopular, they may be few, some of them may be foolish—I do not deny it—
    Mr. ERSKINE: They may be revolutionary.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Some of them are revolutionary—all of them are revolutionary—
    Mr. ERSKINE: That is what I thought.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: No, wait a minute. I will deal with the hon. Member. I am just asking the Home Secretary to realise the great principle involved—that with your anti-Russian bias, with your Communist bogey, with your Bolshevik slogans, you are undermining the fundamental right of British citizenship, which has existed from 1847, to form international associates-hips for the purpose of propagating Socialist ideas. That is the main point.
    The other point is one which I am afraid the Home Secretary has completely evaded, and that is the strange measures taken by him and the Crown Officials of bringing up once again the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797. Hon. Members opposite are proud of the British constitution and one of its chief characteristics is that we proceed from stage to stage by an unwritten law, and we do not always record things in writing, although by practice, acquiescence and common consent we establish the peoples right. I ask the Chief Secretary if he sees no difference between the Army of 1797 and the Army of 1925. In 1797 our
    2116
    soldiers were probably illiterate, ignorant, and unaware of the current events in the world, and quite incapable of forming a well-balanced judgment. But take the soldiers of 1925. Most of them read the "Daily Mail" and the "Morning Post," and they are highly educated. There is an immense difference between the intellectual power of the soldier of 1925 and the soldier of 1797. Many of the soldiers of to-day possess a higher intelligence on political matters than many hon. Members of this House, and they have just as much capacity to form a judgment. Therefore, it is ridiculous to argue that the soldier of 1925 is not as capable of forming a judgment on political questions as any Member of the House of Commons or the Cabinet.
    Since the Act of 1797 was passed you have given the Parliamentary vote to the soldier. Do you suggest that by physical violence or force you are going to alter the right of the soldiers in regard to his Parliamentary vote when it does not suit you? Is that your intention? Do you contend that the soldier of to-day, who has been given the Parliamentary vote is an inferior citizen compared with the rest of the community? Having given soldiers the vote, it is their duty to vote for any candidate they like at any given election. They cannot vote by the method suggested by the Government which is that the candidates should just send them an election address by post, and allow them to form their own judgment. We have a right to go to the soldiers and explain matters, and you have no right to insult the soldier fey saying that he has no right to read the literature of any political party. The soldier has a right to read any political views, and it is our duty to carry into the soldiers' camp our political views.
    It is all very well to say that this is inciting the Army to mutiny in 1925. If the Government had their way, they would take care that the only political literature for the soldiers would be the constitutional literature published by the Conservative associations. Is that why you are using the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797. In the Communist prosecution, you released seven defendants. Are you afraid that they are going to create bloodshed, sedition and tumult? The Judge and jury in this case listened

    2117
    to all the letters and papers which were read, and then the Judge in effect said he had come to the conclusion that whatever these seven defendants had said or done up to the day of the trial, it is not absolutely necessary to put them into prison, and he thought the community would be quite safe if they went out of the Court as free men.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Probably the hon. Member is not aware of the Rule of the House that you cannot criticise the conduct of a Judge, except on a definite Motion brought before the House.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I do not wish to offer any comment on the conduct of the Judge, but I ask the Home Secretary to take the position as it stands, and recommend the release of those seven defendants. Here are seven men against whom the judgment is that it is not necessary to lock them up for what they have done or said, but they have been sent to prison because they will not change their political views. These men have been sent to prison in anticipation of future misdemeanours, and it is not considered necessary to send them to prison for their past misdemeanours. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to reverse the effect of such a judgment. All this has not come about without its origin. Why did the Home Secretary take the view that documents, which were legitimate and permissible in speeches during prosecutions in 1922, 1923, 1924, and early in 1925, should suddenly become dangerous documents now?
    Here we have a real picture of the present Government's mentality. There has been great contention between the Government and the Opposition Benches. The Government undertook to settle certain economic problems which, by their own confessions, were adverse to working-class interests, and whether they intended it or not, they were adverse and hard, and the working classes had to settle down to work for longer hours, lower wages, and less favourable terms than they were enjoying before. Then the Government turn to the Communist agitation, and the Opposition appealed to the Government to leave the Communists alone and take no notice of them. Then the Conservative party in the country and their spokesmen here took
    2118
    a very exaggerated view of their powers, and they said, "No, we cannot leave them alone." In this House, in the Debate on the 6th August last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in the Debate on the Temporary Subvention to the coal mining industry said:
    "What is required for these forces is a policy which will procure their separate treatment in isolation from large popular pursuits, and it is a matter to which every effort should be earnestly and urgently directed."
    This is not the language of the man in the street, but the language of a polished politician whose heart wants to say something, although he is afraid of saying it in plain language. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Communists and the Third International are part and parcel of the working classes, and argued that if the Government tried to punish them the whole of the working classes would be entangled. Therefore they put forward the suggestion that the first operation should be an artful political operation, isolating members from the large body politic of the working class, and then the Government would be able to go ahead. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speech I have alluded to says a little later on:
    "The decision which was taken on Thursday was taken because we had not yet abandoned that hope. If we had plunged into a struggle, allowed a stoppage of the mines, had faced a general strike on the railways, had accepted a temporary paralysis of the entire industry of the country, allowed trade to be checked, allowed social reform to be arrested, our finances to be deranged, had postponed pensions, and restored taxation—if we had taken that position then for us, and so far as this Parliament is concerned, the door would have been closed to an advance to a better state of things It may yet happen."
    Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) speaking on the temporary subvention to the coal mining industry in the same Debate said:
    "The railwaymen would have stopped work last Friday night, not because they wanted to challenge the constitution, not because they were not as loyal as any other citizens of the community, not because that issue was involved, but because they believed they were doing as you would have done if an injustice were done to your people. You would have resented it. The railway-men feel that an injustice was done to the miners, and they were prepared to stand by them."

    2119
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer in another paragraph in his speech said:
    "There is another aspect of challenge to which I know the Committee would wish me to refer. It is a challenge to our Parliamentary institutions from persons far removed from those to whom I have been referring, but it is none the less a very serious, and in some ways in a practical sense, a more dangerous aspect. There is a growing disposition among the great trade union authorities of the country to use the exceptional immunities which trade unions possess under the law, not for the purpose of ordinary trade pursuits, but in the pursuit of far-reaching political and economic aims."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th August, 1925; cols. 1689–90–91, Vol. 187]
    Here is an admission that the Government have in front of thorn within one night an upsetting of this, that and the. other.
    7.0 P.M.
    They found in their cool, quiet calculation that the miners and the railway-men could not he persuaded now to lead an inferior life as hitherto, and, when they found that it was the complete failure and crushing defeat of the whole programme of the Conservative party promised at the General Election. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, and rightly suggested, that it might happen here, because he knows that there are limits to his power of bribing the master class by subsidies and subventions. Therefore, it is his political policy, that here are those Communists. The Labour party said they had nothing to do with it. "They are insignificant. Leave them alone." The Government adopted the view that they are a danger from the Government point of view, that they do count, that their activities are in the creating of strong trade union bodies to behave in a way in which the trade union bodies and organisations did not behave in this country before the advent of the Communist party and the minority movement. Therefore, the Government suggested that the first part should be the political and tactical isolation of this group from the larger body politic of the working classes. Then the Government will go ding dong, not with the view to finding a group here and there and giving them judicial treatment, but with the set political purpose of removing something which in their minds was the cause of bringing failure to the much vaunted Conservative programme and
    2120
    paralysing them for the future without any policy out of the darkness with which they were faced.
    It was on this basis that these political persecutions were formulated. We were challenged by the Attorney-General at the trial, and by the Home Secretary, and by an hon. Member who has interrupted frequently. You said all the time that we were going to have our forces and were going to kill you all, and get on those benches if we could get to the ballot —that there was going to be a mutiny. There was not a trace of evidence. Not only was there no evidence, but, if the House will take my assurance, there was no existence of any military preparations in the Communist party of Great Britain at all. There was nothing in the evidence nor in our action or programme or policy. We simply go to the Army and say one morning, when all is at peace, when there is no disturbance, when the country is in a flourishing condition and a democratic Government with the wishes of the majority of the people are ruling us, "Come out from your barracks with your arms and let Mussolini be put on the throne." There was no such case made against us. There was no such practice, policy, or programme in the whole of the Communist activities. March up to the landlords and shoot them! March up to the mineowners and shoot them! And then we take possession of the mines and the lands! Nothing of the sort was ever contemplated. Nothing so stupid was ever preached; nothing so clumsy was ever suggested.
    We definitely and deliberately stated— and the Home Secretary more than anybody else is the living embodiment and proof of what we said—that the possessing class lives by direct action. The mineowners do not go to a democratic Parliament and get the permission of Parliament to reduce miners' wages. The mineowners go to their own industrial organisation, the mineowners' organisation, and decide there by their own arbitrary vote that they will reduce the wages, and they give notice of reduction to the men. Then, when the men refuse to take the reduction, we Communists say, and will continue to say, because it is true and unassailable, that the master class is full of physical violence, is arming secretly and semiopenly, is drilling, is making preparations

    2121
    for physical violence on the working classes. That being the position, we say to the workers, Please remember that you will have to face it all, and you will have to be on the defensive. Even in spite of all that, you never found in the activities of the Communist party anything besides teaching the men, opening their eyes, and warning them to be on the defensive. You say the Communist party have got funds from Russia, Ireland, or China and got guns and issued them to the workers and said, "Shoot the masters." No, but we definitely say that the ruling class always rules the world by physical means and not by common sense; not by moral persuasion but by terrorism. The difference between the Labour party and the Communist party is that we say to the workers that when the time arrives you will refuse to take direct action and the master class, without any reference to a public democratic vote and the working classes who are in a majority of this country, will refuse to take the dictatorship of the plutocracy lying down. Then the plutocracy and the rulers will make common cause and attack you. The means of self-defence that we have suggested to the working class is not immediately to take arms but to open the eyes of tho9e who are likely to kill us and fight us and to say to them and appeal to them not to kill us and not to shoot the workers. There is nothing illegal or immoral about the programme, and as long as we live and believe so, we have a right to preach it and will continue to preach it.
    I again appeal to this House to weigh up what is in the balance. It is not the personal indiscretions or the personal sense of injustice or this or that, but it is a class funk that started with the last mining crisis, the class funk described in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I also think that the Communist party and the Minority Movement are urging the workers to unite together and to fight and resist in a better manner than they have hitherto been led to do. We still retain our right, in spite of imprisonment and this prosecution, to say to the working classes that we are ruled in the workshops and in the offices by bloodthirsty, unscrupulous people who have grown so accustomed to shout and dictate and always to make military preparations to enforce their will. All of
    2122
    them make sentimental speeches and appeal to morality and one thing and another, but in their heart of hearts they calculate in the last factor to rely upon the armed forces to force the wishes of money and self-interest down the throats of the majority of the population. We say we want to overthrow that system. We want the majority, which is the working classes, to be the dictators, and not the minority, which is the employing class.
    The Home Secretary predicted that after the trial every Communist would feel ashamed of himself. I think he is quite wrong. He had much to be sorry for; he had much to redress and retract. There is nothing any honest and sincere Communist feels ashamed of. In Czechoslovakia, Germany, France and Belgium, Communist Members of Parliament are coming forward in larger and larger numbers, and even in this country, in spite of the little ornamental boards put up outside the Labour camp. How else can it be? We all mean to take possession of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and we are pledged to overthrow Capitalism. It is all nonsense to say that some belong to us and some do not. This is as much vote-catching tactics as the Home Secretary's action was in prosecuting the 12 Communists. That was his vote-catching. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, immediately after the Liverpool Conference, said: "Now I feel happy. At the next Election I will get one million more votes." It was vote-catching trickery.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I can hardly see what connection the conference at Liverpool has with this prosecution.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I have said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had definitely said in this House, that first the isolation of this group from the larger mass was necessary. Then what actually followed was this prosecution. I know that my hon. and right hon. Friends here get very angry. They think they have the monopoly to throw stones at the Communists and say all kinds of wild things against them. That is not the issue. What we maintain is this. If the House has got a majority, they are certain and they feel sure that the country has seen to it—the workers have seen to it—that the whole of this prosecution is

    2123
    an unjust, outrageous attack by the armed and physical violence of the minority and the rich people of this country upon the rights and liberties of the masses and the democratic population of the working classes. Whatever is the vote of the House you will reap what you have sown.
    Now and again we are told, and at this trial we were told, that many things have happened in Russia. We have all admitted that during the first onslaught of the Communist revolution in Russia many undesirable events did take place, but what was then the argument of our own friends? There were two things. There was the establishment of Socialism, but there was the uprooting of Czarism and all that Czarism conveyed and meant. The Government tell us that we have an orderly Government, that we have a constitutional Government, and in our country such subversive measures are not so; and at the same time the Government are taking measures which makes it more and more allied to the Czarist regime in Russia than to the democratic regime which they have proclaimed from their mouth. They must understand that, if they tighten their grip over the freedom of the people, they will themselves be responsible, and not the people, for what may follow.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) while he was addressing the House, but during his speech he was interrupted by the Home Secretary, who put a question to him, and I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is not improper that any insinuation such as was contained in that question, reflecting upon every Member of this House, should be made by any Member of the House; and whether it is not the custom, when any such insinuation or actual aspersion is made against a Member of this House, to notify the Member that the statement is going to be made about him so that he-can be present in the House?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that what was said by the Home Secretary so little impressed itself upon me that I have forgotten what it was.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Home Secretary asked the hon. Member for North
    2124
    Battersea—I am stating, not the actual words, but substantially what He said— whether he would consider it morally right for a, Member of this House to accept some £300 from a foreign country in order to help to pay his Election expenses.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That seems to me to be a perfectly hypothetical case.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Further on my point of Order. In a Debate of this kind, where certain issues are very pronounced, a hypothetical question of that kind may be construed very harmfully towards certain Members of this House. I am not speaking now of any particular section, but, in order to protect the rights of every Member of this House, do you not consider it very advisable that the Home Secretary, if such a case actually exists, should intimate to the Member whom he has in mind that on a particular date he will make this statement regarding him, so that he can be present in this House?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: On that point of Order. Is it not a fact that the hon. Member was present, and had an opportunity of replying if he so desired?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Whether it is expedient or not, is not for the Chair to judge, but certainly there was nothing out of order, and I understood it to be only a hypothetical case.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I must ask your indulgence, Sir, for one minute—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes for a general ruling, I must definitely consult Mr. Speaker on the point. I have already ruled that there was nothing out of order in what the Home Secretary said. Whether it was expedient or not is a matter on which it is not for me to judge.
    Mr. GERALD HURST rose—
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a further point of Order—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have given my ruling.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a further point of Order. You have had a direct statement made by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison)—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already given my ruling.
    Mr. MACLEAN: This is a further point of Order.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have given my decision. Mr. Hurst.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am raising a new point of Order.
    Mr. HURSTI beg to move—
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it in order for an hon. Member in this House to state—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is nothing out of order in what was said by the hon. Member for South Kensington. Mr. Hurst.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that it means that someone in this House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I will keep order when I like. Is it not the case that a reflection on every Member sitting in this House at the moment—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question cannot be raised when another hon. Member has been called, unless that hon. Member give way.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Then any Member can say what he likes without your doing anything in the matter. It is class ruling in the Chair as well.
    Mr. HURST: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from the word "a" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
    "timely vindication of the duty imposed upon all British Governments to safeguard the State against sedition and mutiny, and to protect His Majesty's subjects from being seduced by irresponsible persons into the commission of crime, and that it is undesirable for the legislature to interfere in the administration of justice."
    In the Resolution, the Leader of the Opposition has invoked the aid of those principles of law, freedom of speech, and free publication of opinions, which are cherished in all quarters of this House, and which are deep-rooted in English history; but I venture to say that those principles have never been invoked before to cover so weak a case and to cover so many fallacies. It is almost inconceivable how a right hon. Gentleman in the position of the Leader of the Opposition can come to this House and argue, with the late Solicitor-General sitting by his side, that, after the result of this prosecution, it is illegal for a man to stand
    2126
    in an open place and argue his political faith, that it is illegal for a man to sell books containing his views in a bookshop, and that it is illegal for a man to advocate fundamental changes, or to say that capital must go. Every one of these propositions which the right hon. Gentleman, with his responsibilities, made, is absolutely false, to the knowledge of his own late Solicitor-General, who was sitting by his side. So long as this propaganda does not incite to the commission of violence, or crime, or illegal acts, you can propagandise as much as you like; you can have absolute liberty of speech within the law; you can hold whatever opinions and speak whatever opinions you like.
    The right hon. Gentleman has also suggested that in some way or other the result of this prosecution has been to bring about a change in our constitutional law with regard to freedom of speech. That, again, is a preposterous proposition. There never has been a time in history, and there is no country in the world, where freedom of speech has been held to cover freedom to preach doctrines which are subversive of the State, nor has any civilised country ever tolerated propaganda directed towards seducing its soldiers and sailors in the service of the State from their allegiance, and urging them to embark upon sedition and mutiny. Nothing has been said this evening with regard to the actual expressions used in these documents, which show perfectly clearly, in my submission, that what these Communists aimed at was not a free expression of opinion, but a subversion of the Constitution. I have not seen the full papers, as the Attorney-General has, but I have read the newspaper reports, and I see among them phrases such as these:
    "Every man must be prepared to act his part in the revolutionary army; "
    and, again:
    "Arm the proletariat for the purpose of expropriating the bourgeoisie."
    What do these passages mean? They mean revolution, and nothing short of revolution. So far as these so-called martyrs, or 12 apostles, are concerned, I suggest that they are not martyrs in the least, but are simply 12 revolutionaries who have been found guilty of charges which have been brought against them under the criminal law, which do not

    2127
    affect opinions in any way, but are directed simply to the commission by them of illegal acts. They were charged and found guilty of having committed breaches of the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1797; they were found guilty by the jury of having tried to seduce members of His Majesty's forces from their allegiance. Those are not convictions on fact; and if men preach as an objective of their policy the subversion of the State by force and the initiation of civil war, they cannot ride away by saying it is simply propaganda of opinions, and that that is one of the traditional rights of the English people. It is not a right at all; it never has been a right, and it never has been a tradition.
    I do not want to speak further of the Resolution as moved by the Leader of the Opposition but about the Amendment which I move. I say that the action of the Government has been timely and well-founded, and I say it on three grounds. In the first place, I cannot imagine a meaner crime than the crime of which these irresponsible Communists have been guilty, in trying to persuade men in the armed Forces of the Crown to mutiny and sedition. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says, prosecute them when they actually put the sedition or the mutiny into movement—that was his expression; wait till the mutiny and sedition take place. What does that involve? Assuming that a soldier in the Army is cajoled by these incendiaries into acts of mutiny and sedition, what happens to him if he mutinies? Everyone knows that the most severe penalties and pains await him. But is he the man who is really most guilty? Surely, the main burden rests upon the shoulders of the people who have persuaded the soldier into that course.
    When I was soldiering in 1918, I was President of a number of Courts-martial, where we tried certain soldiers who refused to obey orders on the ground that they did not believe in fighting for their country, and we had to carry out the task, which is distasteful to all members of Courts-martial of sentencing them to the appropriate punishments. But when we did so, we were very careful to put upon the records of the case a statement,
    2128
    which all the men had made, that the ideas which they were following out in the Army were ideas that had been inculcated into them in Socialist schools. The moral offence of which they were guilty was not upon them at all; the real blame rested upon those who persuaded them into that course. But if we followed the line of argument of the Leader of the Opposition, we should say that there is no. offence at all in inculcating those principles, and that the only offence is that of following out the advice by those to whom it is given. That is subversive, surely, not only of sound principles of law, but of sound principles of morality.
    Let us see how it would apply in other cases of crime. Let us imagine a thieves' kitchen after the style of "Oliver Twist." A later-day Fagin instructs a later-day Oliver Twist to go out and steal. The later-day Oliver Twist goes out into the street, and is caught stealing and prosecuted with the rigour of the law. What about Fagin, the man who has incited him to those, acts? He is absolutely immune, according to the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman teaches, because he, Fagin, when he was giving this advice and instruction, was following the traditional British right of freedom of speech and the traditional British right of publishing his opinion—that is to say, his opinion of what this boy should do! It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the main offence rests upon the men who are persuaded into these dangerous courses. The real obloquy, of course, rests upon the men who preach these doctrines. I say that these Communists, who do not wish to take upon themselves the results of their own mutinous propaganda are playing a mean game, because they leave their dupes to bear the full burden, while they themselves seek to escape. That is the first reason why I say that this prosecution was timely and well-founded.
    The second is that the whole Communist propaganda is directed against the young, who are the most impressionable. In these days, if there be one thing which appeals to the sentiment and sympathy of the great mass of the people, it is the bringing up of young people. More interest is taken at the present time in education, and in movements like the boy scouts and other healthy movements

    2129
    for the young, than has ever been taken before. And here, in the face of that, you have this Communist and Socialist propaganda urging these boys and girls of most tender age to believe in such unholy doctrines as class war, and to believe that when they become adults it is their duty to take up arms and take part in active revolutionary war against society. I do not think any reasonable person can look on propaganda of that sort without horror. That is not the feeling only among certain sections of society. It permeates the whole mass of the people. I represent a very poor constituency indeed. A few weeks ago a woman in most humble circumstances asked me: "Why does not the Government do something to stop these Socialist talkers at street corners persuading the boys to believe in class warfare?" The poor unsophisticated woman used the expression "Socialist" because she did not know what an enormous difference there really is, as we are now told, between Socialists and Communists. In actual fact it is only necessary to put in force the law as it is at present, and I think the great mass of the reasonable and thinking people of the country will be most grateful to the Government for having done so. The third reason I suggest for saying the action of the Government has been well advised is that this propaganda is normally directed and aimed, as the last speaker admitted, at revolution. You cannot glorify revolution. You cannot speak lightly of it. You cannot have a revolution without killing other people, and we have had enough of killing. For these reasons I say the measures taken by the Government are extraordinarily timely.
    May I deal with two points which have been made against the action of the Government? Again we have had trotted out, for the thousandth time, instances of the language used by Ulster loyalists and their sympathisers in 1912–14. But there is no analogy whatever. In 1912–14 those expressions were simply expressions of what these loyalists would do in the contingency of being forced out of the protection of the Imperial Parliament under the domination of a Power which, rightly or wrongly, they regard as hostile. That is absolutely different from the condition with which we are faced to-day,
    2130
    which is a condition where men preach open rebellion against the State as now constituted. It is absolutely irrelevant, because the rotten Liberal Government in 1912 did not fulfil what hon. Members opposite now regard—
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the hon. and learned Member consider that they would have secured a conviction if they had prosecuted?
    Mr. HURST: No, because a prosecution would have been so extraordinarily stupid. But assume for a moment that there is an analogy between the Ulster propaganda and the Communist propaganda, it has no relevancy at all. It is suggested that the Liberal Government ought to have taken action then. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member is talking about threats. Does he regard gun-running as a threat?"] No, I regard that as action. If the Liberal Government in 1912 did not take the action hon. Members think it ought to have taken, why should a strong, popular Conservative Government in 1925 follow the course taken by the weak Liberal Government in 1912? We now have a strong Conservative Government on the full tide of its power and popularity, fortified and supported by the faith and confidence of the great mass of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "A minority."] It does not follow that we ought to make in 1925 the mistake they are said to have made in 1912.
    The last point I want to make is that referred to at the tail end of my Amendment, that it is inexpedient and undesirable for Parliament to interfere at ail in the administration of justice. The late Socialist Government themselves started the prosecution of Campbell and then stopped because he had powerful friends among their ranks. According to the views held by hon. Members opposite, because these Communists have powerful friends on those benches, they seem to think it is incumbent upon our Government in the first instance to put a veto on this prosecution, in the second instance to stop the prosecution after it has been started, and in the third instance to release these men now that they have been convicted. That shows a desire for class preference of a most extraordinary kind. As these people have got powerful friends, therefore they are to be released, while a poor man or

    2131
    woman who steals a loaf of bread is to serve the full length of his or her sentence. Merely because these people are able to rely on good backing from the benches opposite it is suggested that these miscreants ought to be released. I believe the enormous mass of people in the country regard it as a most deplorable thing that the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and other distinguished leaders of the Socialist party, should be found attached to a Resolution which simply means truckling to the revolutionaries, whose doctrines they say they reject. I ask hon. Members to read the Resolution for themselves. You cannot read it without interpreting it as clearly a message of hope, sympathy and encouragement to these men who have been found guilty of deliberately inciting other men—not themselves—to revolution. And to encourage revolution in that way is entirely against public policy, and seems to me entirely inconsistent with what one would imagine to be the attitude of responsible leaders of a great party. We on this side believe that all this preaching of propaganda with regard to class warfare and revolution can only do harm. We believe in peace. [An HON. MEMBER: "You practise it."] Yes, we practise it, and because we practise peace we think men who preach war ought to be locked up. In supporting my Amendment the House will be affirming what I believe can be regarded as one of the first principles, not only of British government, but of civilised government—that it is the duty of any State to safeguard itself against irresponsible propaganda which would involve our people in the illimitable calamity of civil war.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I rise to second the Amendment which has been moved with such closeness of reasoning and with such commendable brevity by my hon. and learned Friend. I find it exceedingly difficult to understand why this Debate was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and by very nearly the whole body of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front bench opposite. The difficulty I originally felt was in no way dissipated by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and still less by the speech we have just heard,
    2132
    at enormous length, from the hon. Member for Battersea. The right hon. Gentleman is always listened to in this House with great respect when the House is assured that he is speaking from his innermost convictions. But we listen perhaps with rather less respect when we feel that he is prodded from behind to protests of passionate indignation, which we know to be foreign to his own amiable and pacific temper. I notice that from the long list of right hon. Gentlemen who subscribe to the Resolution, there is one rather significant omission, and that is the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). I think I can understand why his name was not added, for I observe that he holds responsible for the prosecutions which the Resolution deplores, not the present Government, but his colleagues in the late Government.
    "I cannot escape the conviction"—
    I am quoting from a speech he made at the week-end—
    "that the hostile attitude and speeches of the Labour Party Conference at Liverpool, when the Communists were thrown to the wolves, are largely responsible for the proceedings and the result."
    That, I suppose, is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman is not here to-day. He is brandishing a sword, not pointed at us on these benches, but at his right hon. colleagues on the benches opposite.
    Let me get to the terms of the Motion that we are proposing to eliminate. There is no Member in the House who is more jealous of the traditional rights of freedom of speech and publication of opinion than I am, and I believe there was never a moment in the history of this country when it was more essential that those rights should be jealously safeguarded than it is to-day, when the Government rests, as it must rest, upon opinion. But the question of the House has to decide is whether or not these rights have been violated. The case for the Motion is that certain members of the Communist party said or wrote certain things which they were legally entitled to say or write. Is that the case that is maintained by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution, or is their case, alternatively, that there is nothing— this point was dealt with, if I may say so, very admirably by the Home Secretary— which a man or woman is not entitled to say, and not entitled to write, providing

    2133
    he or she does not libel, by writing or speech, somebody else. Are we to understand from those who are responsible for the Motion that there can be no limitation of the freedom of speech or of publication except when other private individuals may be injuriously concerned?
    I very much doubt whether there is or ever has been any country in the world where such latitude of opinion and expression is permitted as it is in this country. There is not a foreigner who ever visits these shores who is not amazed at our toleration in this respect, and that amazement is not wholly confined to foreigners. This characteristic of curs is a perfectly bound characteristic. I should be inclined to go to the extremest limits of toleration, for this reason, that we have deliberately thrown the reins on the neck of the democratic horse and, when we have done that, it is only a sign of weakness always to be snatching at the reins. This latitude, this toleration, is perfectly sound. It is sound that we should go to the extremist limits of toleration, but it is not sound and it is not right that we should go beyond those limits.
    The sole question raised by our Amendment, as by the original Resolution, is this: Is it pretended by those responsible for the Motion, or can it be argued by anybody, that the extremist limits of toleration were not exceeded by the persons who were convicted last wek? The charge against them was that they were engaged in a seditious conspiracy for the forcible overthrow by arms of the existing order of society, and, as a means to that end, the seduction of the armed forces of the Crown from their allegiance. It was not upon words spoken in the excitement of a public meeting that the prosecution of these men was founded. The right hon. Gentleman opposite—I was surprised to hear him making such a case this afternoon —complained that the accusation against these men was founded upon printed documents and upon other documents which were kept or sold by them. It was proved to the hilt from these documents that these men were in the habit of advocating an armed straggle for the overthrow of what they call the international bourgeoisie. Among their immediate objects was the formation—let us be clear about this, and let us know whether hon. Members opposite
    2134
    are concerned to deny it—of mutinous and illegal nuclei within the Army and within the Navy. In other words, they were carrying out the dictum of one of the prophets of their movement to arm the proletariat:
    "Arm the proletariat for the purposes of expropriating and disarming the bourgeoisie. No government which confines itself to operating within the strait limits of capitalist parliamentarism can possibly be a workers' government."
    These were the words of one of the accused, Mr. Campbell, speaking at the seventh congress of the Communist party of Great Britain at Glasgow, on 13th May this year.
    I am sorry that the late Solicitor-General is not in his place, because I understand that he is to reply. He has attempted to argue that the Communist propaganda—I think this is the whole case for the Motion put forward this afternoon—was nothing more than legitimate political propaganda. Does he or any of his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite say, categorically, that to attempt to seduce soldiers and sailors from their allegiance is no more than legitimate political propaganda? That is a perfectly straight question, and I would respectfully ask that it should be faced by those who follow me in this Debate.
    "In fighting against war"—
    I am quoting again from Mr. Campbell's speech at the seventh congress of the Communist party—
    "we do not merely fight against it with phrases but by definite work in our propaganda with the Army and the Navy."
    I do not wish to detain the House at any length, but in seconding the Amendment I would put one or two plain, straightforward questions to the Front Bench opposite. Will any right hon. or hon. Member opposite get up and categorically deny that these Communists were rightly found guilty on the charges alleged against them? The late Attorney-General and Home Secretary in the Liberal Government, the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) did not deny that they were fairly tried and fairly and rightly found guilty of the charges which were alleged against them. I am not suggesting that he said that it was wise to prefer the charges. He was very careful to dissociate himself from any such thing, but he said quite clearly, and we are all obliged to him

    2135
    for the opinion, that they were fairly tried and fairly and rightly found guilty of the charges alleged against them.
    Are hon. and right hon. Members opposite going to traverse that opinion of the former Liberal Home Secretary? Will they affirm that the charges on which these men were put on trial were not very serious charges? The charge was of conspiracy to subvert by force the constitution or government of this country. I suppose it may be said that we are all more or less engaged, in greater or lesser degree, in subverting the Constitution almost every day of our Parliamentary lives, even under a Conservative administration; but no Government, Conservative, Liberal or Socialist, has ever, as far as I know, proposed to subvert the Constitution by force of arms. If these men were guilty, I want to know whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite will deny that it was right to prosecute them and punish them. Suppose they had succeeded. Suppose the propaganda which these persons initiated, and which they were found guilty of having initiated, had succeeded, and they had seduced the allegiance of half-a-dozen soldiers or half-a-dozen sailors. Suppose they had seduced the allegiance of one soldier or one sailor. That man would have been shot, and there is nobody in this House who would not say that it was right to shoot him?
    Mr. BROMLEY: Do not be too sure.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: If you had been in office when that occurred you would have shot that man.
    Mr. BROMLEY: No.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Why did not you shoot the Curragh officers?
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: The hon. Member says "no." I think your leaders would have done it. Are you going to shoot a man for listening to bad advice and let the bad adviser go scot free? Is that your idea of equity? Is that what you would do if you were in office? You may say that these men by their propaganda would never have seduced a cat. Are you prepared to expose even a cat to the temptation? I do not believe for a moment that if you were the executive Government of the country at this moment that you would so expose it.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that the Home Secretary has gone, but I suppose this will be put on record. I would like just to clear up, first of all, the statement made in the letter which he read out to the House. As to the personal statement contained in the letter, I have nothing to say, because whatever people's opinions of me may be, I hope I am old enough not to bother my head. Life is much too short to be worried about that kind of thing. But on the question of the money one would imagine that there was a great secret, and that the Home Secretary was letting the British public know, for the first time, that some money had come to me and had gone from me to a famine relief committee in Ireland. Directly I was asked to take that money as chairman of a committee, which also has been in existence for many years here in London, I simply said that if the cheque came I would go to Dublin myself and hand it to the committee, and that I would publish it immediately. I published it on the evening that I got the cheque, and the "Morning Post," I think it was, or one of the Tory papers, was good enough to write a rather humorous leading article on the subject. I would have thought that the secret police who keep the Home Secretary so well informed would not have thought it worth while to root out from a photographed letter the statement that was read out to-day.
    There is no secret about the money. I did not distribute it; but a committee of Irishmen did. It was well known that I went to Ireland, because I was pretty well watched from the time I got to Holy-head and the time I returned. I have lived long enough to know the police of this country whether they are in uniform or in plain clothes and I do not understand the reference at all except for the purpose of dragging in my name into this question of money. I do not see what other reason there could have been for wanting to refer to it at all. I notice the right hon. Gentleman is now in the House and I am very sorry that his Criminal Investigation Department did not tell him that the whole of the facts in connection with the case were published, not only in the Labour Press, but in newspapers like the "Morning Post" and local papers. There was no secret

    2137
    about it whatsoever and there was no connection so far as I know with the Communist party. The people who handed the cheque to me and to whom the cheque came were the Russian Co-operative Society. That settles that.
    I now want to say a few words about the case itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member who supported it were very anxious to put questions to us. They both dealt at some length with the Ulster case. The real crime of the situation in regard to Ulster is not that the hon. and learned Gentlemen, Privy Councillors, who had sworn allegiance to the King and Parliament in a double sense, first here and in the House of Lords, and then as Privy Councillors—it is not at all that they wrote things or that they published things but that they did things. The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) and the hon. Member below the Gangway both talked as if there were some sort of similarity between what these Communists have done and what the Unionist chiefs did. Nothing of the kind. They said, "Would anybody defend the seducing of the Army or any unit of the Army?" What about General Gough and the Curragh Camp? There was a positive mutiny, and Lord Oxford, when he was Prime Minister, had in. a way to cashier his War Secretary and go across to Dublin as War Secretary and straighten out things for himself. Is there anyone here who will say that there is anything in what these men have done which parallels that? Then I want to know this. The argument is that the Communist party were stopping the King's Government and that they wanted to overturn the King's Government, that these 12 men were agitating to overthrow the King's Government and in effect to stop the King's Writ running. What happened in 1914 to 1915?
    There was a Bill passed into law by the King, the Lords and Commons, called the Home Rule Act. It was an Act of Parliament. That Act was never put into operation. Why? Because of Lord Carson, who was then Sir Edward Carson, aided and abetted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are now prosecuting these other people. There was an army of 100,000 men that said, through Sir Edward Carson, "If you dare to put this law into operation, no matter
    2138
    if you are at war with Germany and fighting with the Allies, we will revolt against you." Is there anybody on those benches—the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) is running away—I want to ask him, does he defend that?
    Mr. HURST: It did not happen at all.
    Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: The hon. Member is wrong. The Act did not come into force until after the War had started.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I said nothing of the kind. I said 1914–15, and it was after the War that the Act should have come into operation, and Sir Edward Carson refused to allow it to come into operation. He refused to allow the King's Writ to run. There is no need for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to get excited. It is on record that the Home Rule Act never did come into operation, and the hon. and learned Gentleman when he was warning us of the terrible evil effects of our preaching and of our not taking responsibility, because he roped us all in once or twice, and letting other people suffer because of our preaching, forgot altogether that because the Home Rule Act was not allowed to operate you had a revolution in Ireland and all the terrible things that followed.
    When hon. and learned Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side are telling us of the meanness of preaching certain doctrines which might get other people into trouble, it is really Satan rebuking sin, because not only did they preach these things but they actually carried them out. I have no doubt that the learned Attorney-General will be able to make quite a good case against these men, but he did not produce any case at the Old Bailey where men had been seduced from their allegiance. There were no soldiers, sailors or airmen put into the witness box. In the case which had been cited and defended to-night hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have all the time argued as if it were on all fours with the other case, and my argument is that if there is any comparison at all it is against the Privy Councillors and those who acted as they did from 1911 right on to 1916. I am not sure of the exact dates, but it was during the War, and it is certain that very many people were slain and very much suffering took place in Ireland because of the action

    2139
    taken by those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.
    In regard to this case, taking it as it stands, I want to make two or three remarks. Like other speakers I want to be as brief as I possibly can. I take a view of this that is entirely different from that of many of my hon. Friends on these benches, and I take the view that men are entitled to preach the class war, they are entitled to claim the right to organise either through Parliament or through Trades Union action, to secure the transformation of this society from a capitalist society to a socialist society. I do not myself hold that the word "socialism" or the word "communism" are very different one from the other. The difference is altogether in method. The first Communists that I ever heard of were the Communists who used to meet on the first day of the week and had all things in common after a certain crucifixion. The modern Communist that I knew was William Morris, of the Socialist League, of which he was the leading spirit, and other Communists that I have known all were men like Charles Kingsley and others, who taught me the quite simple truth that society should be organised for the common service of the whole community. I do not know why it is that there is this horror of the word "communism" as standing alone, separate and apart from everything else. I am going to quote the words of someone much more able than I am, and that is George Bernard Shaw, who has said that the word "communism" is a much better word to describe what the Labour and Socialist movement is standing for than the word "socialism," because you have a communal water supply, and communal roads, and there is not one of us in this House could live through the 24 hours without communal effort of one sort or another.
    I deny altogether that there is anything blackguardly or anything wrong in Communism as a theory of life, and I also claim that that communal effort has been going on for centuries and that nearly every Member of the House is here claiming something from the community which they desire. They are here for the safeguarding of industries or getting allowances or the granting of one thing or
    2140
    another, all from the communal funds of the community. Now Communism to me means only the expansion of that principle, and I deny altogether that you have a right to put a limit to it and to say that we can go so far in communal effort, but that we cannot go any farther. Therefore I am standing in with the Communists in preaching the overthrow of Capitalism and the establishment of Communism or Socialism in this country. I want it done not in their way, and that is where I disagree with them most thoroughly.
    That is the position which I take up, a position which enables them to adopt towards me the attitude that they do adopt. There are many of you who take a similar attitude because I and my Friends here hold extreme pacifist views as to the Army, Navy, and so on. The point I want to get out relates to a statement by Sir Travers Humphreys. I repeat that I am going to make propaganda for the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment in its place of a communal ownership of land, machinery, and the means of life generally, to be used, not for profit making or for rent but for the service of the entire community. I do not see the difference between a communal road and a communal bread supply, or between a communal electricity supply and a communal meat supply. Having said that, I want to ask the Attorney-General what Sir Travers Humphreys meant when he said:
    "Communism hails from Russia, and the two societies with which the accused are connected receive their orders from Moscow."
    Do not let hon. Members forget that we were all told in the 1923 Election that we had received our orders from the Second International. It was then the German International—I cannot pronounce the words for they are too long. Any stick was good enough to beat us. Now it is Moscow. I have already said that Communism did not originate in Moscow. It was from Palestine that I first heard of it. Here is what Sir Travers Humphreys said:
    "The prosecution suggests here that Communism—again I repeat as understood and explained by these persons and their associates—is illegal because it involves three things. The first is the overthrow of the constituted Government of this country and the established forces of Government by force; (2) because it involves the creation"—

    2141
    I call attention to this especially, particularly that of my colleagues on these benches,
    "of antagonism between different classes of His Majesty's subjects. To use an expression that one frequently finds in these publications, it involves the creation of a class war."
    I want to know whether, if I preach the fact of the class war, I am breaking the law. If I tell men to work and organise so as to get rid of the conditions that produce the class war, is that sedition? The statement goes on:
    "(3) because it involves seducing from their allegiance the armed forces of the Crown. If these matters can be established by evidence, I venture to say that no lawyer would even argue the question as to whether or not the persons who publish doctrines of that kind are guilty of what is commonly called sedition. The ultimate object of this doctrine of Communism, as stated in the book that I have referred to on the second page, is the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat."
    As I understand the Gentleman who said these things, he is laying it down that the advocacy of the overthrow of capitalism, the preaching of the class war, is illegal, if, as he says, it is accompanied by the doctrine that you must overthrow by force. I am not saying that of necessity the working classes will accomplish their aims by peaceful methods, though I believe they will. I ask the Attorney-General whether it is illegal for any man to stand up and say, "Use your votes, but when you have used them, take the example of Ulster as showing what the propertied classes will do, and take the fact that you are continually being threatened by voluntary organisations that, do what you will, you shall not accomplish your end peacefully." Are men to be forbidden to say that, in that event, they will use force in order to accomplish their ends?
    An hon. Member opposite, when I spoke from that side of the House during the Labour Government, charged me and my friends at Bow with being members of the Communist party, and in answer to him I made some statements in reference to the Communist party. I said I was certain that the more they were prosecuted, the more they were interfered with, the greater their strength would become, and that they were a negligible quantity. I pointed out on what points I disagreed with them. Their secretary
    2142
    wrote to the Press a letter in which ho denied altogether the statement I had made, that my disagreement with them was founded on the fact that they relied entirely on force in order to obtain their end. He pointed out that they were only advocating that, under certain conditions, the workers would have to fight, and therefore ought to organise in order to carry their end. The Fascisti are doing the same thing to-day. I do not know the difference between the propaganda of the Fascisti and the propaganda of the Communists in principle. The Communists say that you must organise to stop these people in their effort to prevent the law running, as was done in the Ulster case; and the Fascisti say you must organise in order that these people shall not get their way when they have a majority and want to deal with the Constitution of the country in their own way.
    I am in the dilemma that I do not understand why proceedings are taken against one section and not against the other. That brings me to my last point. It is often said, and was said to-night, that the things we want to do cannot be done by the methods of this House. Sir Travers Humphreys said something very like it at Bow Street—that we knew we could not accomplish the overthrow of capitalism by peaceful means. If once that is believed outside, you are really inciting people to revolution. It seems to be forgotten—I am always saying this to my Communist friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Yes, the 12 men who are in prison are my personal friends, and I am not ashamed to say so. I have known many of them since they wore very young. If every Member of this House were as willing to give to any cause in which he believed better service than those men have given to the cause in which they believe, then he would be worthy of respect. It is often forgotten when we talk about revolution, complete absolute revolution in regard to social and industrial matters. I would not be in this House were it not that I believed and hoped that those who come after me will carry the thing through. I want to see the total destruction of the capitalist system. I want to see landlordism uprooted out of the country altogether. I am going to work for that end, and this House is the place where we ought to be able to accomplish it, but we shall not

    2143
    be able to accomplish it if the dice are loaded against us at election times as was the case at the last election.
    Commander BELLAIRS: You loaded them.
    Mr. LANSBURY: No, you loaded them, and I may say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is so hilarious about it, that I am not quite sure, but I think there is a certain newspaper called the "Daily Mail" which probably invented or got together that business and caused its publication at that moment. That is not all. If it were only a case of the "Red Letter" none of us would complain very much, but what we do complain of are the filthy libels as to women and children, the stories going round as to what would happen to women and children if this innocent set got into power. I desire to take the House back to 1688. There was a certain gentleman called King James. You wanted to get rid of him. You got rid of him by pretending that you did not quite know where he was. If he stayed in Whitehall, certain people argued, you could not have done what was actually done, but he got away down to Dover, and then, by Act of Parliament, you altered the Law of Succession and you got another branch of the Royal House sitting here by Act of Parliament. When I made the affirmation I was asked: "How is it that you people who say that ultimately you believe in a republic, can take the affirmation or the oath? "Well, on that document there are the words" as bylaw appointed," and if you can appoint by law, you can disappoint by law. I call attention to that point because we are charged with wanting to bring about a revolution, and some of us definitely want to do so, but we want to do it in this House and by means of the vote and legislation.
    There is no use thinking that this is merely something that we talk about and have no intention of doing. There is a feeling growing up about the Labour movement, both in this House and outside, that our propaganda does not mean very much and that we shall settle down to the same old jog-trot as all the other political parties. I want to say—and I want to say it to myself as well as to everybody else—that the people who
    2144
    make violence inevitable in this country— and I believe, if ever you do get it, it will be much worse than any other country ever has seen—are those who jeer and laugh at the possibility, forgetting altogether that you have done two things. The result of one is that the working men and women of this country can now read and write, and many of them are infinitely better educated than the average man in this House—or woman either. Secondly, you have given votes to the men in the Army, Navy and Air Force, and hon. Members on this side have challenged you to say that we have not the right to make propaganda for Socialism among the forces of the Crown. We have a perfect right to do so, because they are going to use their vote one way or the other, and we have as much right to make our propaganda, to get them to vote for the constitutional use of this place to overthrow Capitalism, as you have to make propaganda to get them to maintain Capitalism. When it comes to shooting down, I am in the position that I shall tell men never to join the armed forces— never in any circumstances. I have voted against that and shall do so while Mr. Speaker allows me to move the Motion. I think the mere reliance on armed force is something which always produces evil and violence.
    You may put these 12 men in prison. You may keep them there for six months or a year. You may take another 12, and the Attorney-General may, as he humorously remarked the other night, have me and others like me in the dock at the Old Bailey. But I recall to him and to this House that the history of this country is littered with examples down through the centuries of Governments trying to crush movements maintained for the uplifting and progress of the common people, and in spite of repression, in spite of Tory attempts to crush down the trade unionists and the Chartists and all these people, right from the time of the peasant revolts down to the present, those movements have persisted and every one of the attempts at repression has failed. If you want to put down violence, if you want to put down agitation in Ireland, you will not do it by putting men in prison, but by removing the causes which make men and women revolt. I look out on England, which is my country, and which I love as much as anybody in this place. I

    2145
    look out on the people with whom I have lived all my life, and I see them growing poorer and poorer. I see the social and industrial districts of Britain poverty stricken, and destitution from one end of the country to the other. I see these people being refused the means of life. I see them being told, "You must be content to go deeper and deeper into the morass of destitution." I have almost seen the wheel of social reform go full circle. I see it now going rapidly back to where it was 50 or 60 years ago, and I say to this House that the attempt to crush these few men, in the name of law and for the reason of putting down sedition, will fail as every other such effort has failed, because you will leave the festering mass of discontent there, and somehow or other it will burst forth. You cannot keep back the working class. They are marching to power, and if this House were sensible, instead of wasting our time on the Bills which we do consider, we would gather round a table—we would get together and try to find some means whereby we could possibly take over the economic conditions of life and transform them from what they are under the present hellish competitive system and try to use them for the service of the common people.
    Mr. GRACE: I ask the indulgence of the House because I rise to address it for the. first time. As a lawyer, I feel there is no-one in the House who has a greater respect for the right of free speech than I have, and I think this Debate is distinguishable from all other Debates I have heard in that in all quarters of the House we seem to agree despite our other differences, that there should be a full right of public discussion on matters of public interest. With great respect, I should like to remind hon. Members opposite that they have not always held that same respect for free speech which I feel they are anxious to show now. During the last Election many of the extremists attached to the party opposite did not show the same zeal for free speech that hon. Members have shown to-day. Not only that, but in spite of the fact that a great many of their political opponents were not able to get a fair bearing, not a single hon. or right hon. Member opposite made any single protest. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true!"]
    2146
    If hon. Members say that is not true, I entirely withdraw my observation, but I can only say that, if that be so, hon. Members opposite have launched an avalanche of class hatred which they now find they are unable to check.
    I feel that there is no other country in the world which gives to people the right of free speech to the same extent as does this country, and I would like to ask those hon. Members opposite who recently went to Russia in order to make a report to the democracy here as to the wonderful benefits which the Soviet Government of Russia has conferred upon the Russian people, if, while they were there, they saw anything like what you and I can see at Hyde Park Corner any Sunday morning. I do not think they did, and I think the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was a very remarkable example of the extent of the liberty of free speech which we have here. The Leader of the Opposition asked what opinions he might hold next. I think that shows clearly, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he has not understood the legal distinction between political opinion and political action. What these men have been convicted for is political action, and not political opinion, and I would suggest to hon. Members that two possible things could happen. One would be to remind soldiers on public platforms that they all come from the working classes, and to endeavour to persuade them to any political views you like, which would be a perfectly legal thing to do. but if you try to persuade soldiers, when they are called up in a time of industrial riot and disturbance, to disobey the orders of their officers, you are breaking the law, and should be convicted.
    That is what these men have been convicted for by an English jury of 12 men. One thing at which I was very surprised was the courage which the leader of the Opposition showed in renouncing all class hatred and any principles which tended to bring about violence in this country. I think it was courageous, because he had hardly spoken for two or three minutes before the question of the jury was raised, and a number of hon. Members opposite immediately asked if there were any trade unionists on the jury. That is class hatred again. Are jurymen in the future to be catechised and cross-examined

    2147
    before they go into the jury box, to find out what their political convictions are? Are they to be members of trade unions? That shows clearly that the leader of the Opposition has got a very difficult team behind him. What hon. Members opposite are really quarrelling with is not this Government, but with the 12 jurymen. Is not a jury, according to hon. Members opposite, to find a verdict according to the evidence stated before it? Any reasonable man has only to read any of the inflammable pamphlets put before the trial to agree that the Communist party intended to upset the existing order in this country by revolution and violence, and that is the very reason which caused the party opposite to turn the Communists out of the party in Liverpool, yet apparently what the Labour party can do at Liverpool without any legal evidence, namely, sentence these men to excommunication, a British jury, after a fair trial, are not to be allowed to do. Lastly, I think these men who have been sentenced are entitled to a good deal of sympathy, because I feel that they have been led on to take the course which they have taken through the speeches which have been made now for a whole generation by hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. DUNCAN: All of them?
    Mr. GRACE: Most of them. They have gone about telling the working man that he has been robbed of the fruits of his labour, and what is the natural result of saying that? These men are going to turn round and say: "We are going to take it from the people who have deprived us, by force, and give them no kind of compensation whatsoever." That is the natural corollary of all that foolish teaching, and the only people who have got the courage to be logical in their doctrines are the Communist party.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Grace), I understand, has just made his maiden speech, and I regret that I did not hear the whole of it. We had a function downstairs to the Earl of Oxford, which kept me from the Debate, and that is why I am so poorly supported now. At any rate, the hon. Member may congratulate himself on the amount of opposition he
    2148
    moused, which is always a good sign of the success of a speech in this House. I wish to make only two points, though I think they are important. I wonder if, when the learned Attorney-General comes to reply, he could do me the honour of answering a question. Will he turn aside from his great oratorical effort which we are about to enjoy at 10 o'clock to tell me why, in the charge made against these 12 defendants, one of whom was McManus, he did not bring in the charge of McManus having been one of the signatories of the famous Zinovieff letter? When I have suggested that that letter was a forgery, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has gone white with passion, and so have other Members of the Government. They have said it was absolutely genuine and that they could prove it.
    That would prove, to use language dear to the Home Secretary, the most damning piece of evidence on the charge of tampering with the loyalty of the troops, than which, I quite concede, there is no more serious charge. But that charge was never put in. The Home Secretary to-day produced all sorts of photographs and documents from his cabinet noir, from his secret police, from his espionage department in the Post Office, and so on, but he did not produce the Zinovieff letter, and if that letter, which was used at the Election, was apparently signed by Mr. McManus, one of the defendants, a very clear proof of his sedition and guilt, why was it not produced? May I ask the Attorney-General why such a valuable piece of information escaped being used? Why has he waited all these months before arresting McManus if he believes, as the rest of his colleagues do, in their innocence, that that letter was genuine? If the Attorney-General would answer that, it would clear up a very puzzling matter in my mind.
    The other point is this. I really wish that hon. and right hon. Members of the Conservative party would get rid of the superabundance of sentimentality, and become a little more practical and even a little cynical. Do they really think they are going to kill opinion in this country by prosecution? The Prussian Government, the most efficient Government in the world, with a splendid police, secret service and all the rest of it, attempted

    2149
    to subdue opinion by prosecution. No professor who did not profess the Government creed could hold a chair and no man could hold any office under the Government unless he was a supporter of the bureaucracy and the National and Conservative party in that country. The Kaiser boasted to Lord (then Mr.) Haldane, "I have not a singlet officer who is a Jew in my army," and yet our War Minister was able to reply, "Yet nearly all your newspapers are owned by Jews." There was the most complete suppression of opinion, and what was the result? The Government broke down in chaos. There was a much more ruthless system, I believe, in Russia in the days of the Czars. There were the secret police, a whole system of espionage and of agents-provocateur. You had it introduced in a way it could never be introduced in this country, because you have not the nerve to suppress opinion and carry it right through, and you know it. You could not do it in Ireland with everything in your favour, and you cannot do it in this country. Therefore, you had better give up the attempt, and try to relieve grievances instead. I wish the hon. Member for Wirrall (Mr. Grace) could come with me into my constituency and see the way some of the people live in the slums there. The wonder is not that there are so many Communists, but that all are not Communists when you see the condition of the casual workers at the docks and their families. Their patience and Constitutionalism is extraordinary under the circumstances. By advertising these people and their documents, you gain sympathy from these very men, and that is where the blunder has been made by an otherwise intelligent gentleman like the Attorney-General. It is the stupidity of the party opposite, if persisted in, that will wreck the constitution of the country.
    Major STANLEY: I thought, until I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, that the discussion on this Motion would be restricted within very narrow limits. There is undoubtedly a great deal to be said about the expediency of this prosecution, about whether it was worth while to invoke the whole machinery of the law against what Members opposite term an insignificant band, whether the danger
    2150
    represented by their propaganda was a danger which was grave, and whether the action which has been taken would have any effect. As a matter of fact, the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman carefully excludes any possibility of discussing that expedient. It leaves one question, and one question alone, to be discussed, and that is whether the prosecution by the Government of certain men who were charged with breaches of an existing law, which were proved to the satisfaction of a British jury, was a violation of the traditional British rights of freedom of speech and publication of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman carefully avoided, through practically the whole of his speech, dealing with the Motion in his name. He spoke at considerable length of the expediency of this prosecution. He spoke at rather greater length on the expediency of not having prosecuted in 1912, and almost the whole of the remainder of his speech was devoted to what one might call the expediency of the Home Secretary.
    The right hon. Gentleman only devoted one or two sentences to the real question at issue, and he gave in those sentences his idea of what the freedom of speech in this country consisted. He stated, if I remember aright, that speech or publication was absolutely free as far as opinions and statements were concerned, except, of course, for the limitation which the Home Secretary pointed out, the law of defamation, obscene publication and incitement to crime, with which hon. Members on all sides must agree. But he went from that, and gave an example of his doctrine. He said that every man was perfectly at liberty to give as his opinion that a Communist state was the best system of society, and that it was impossible to realise it without a revolution. But he stopped there, and did not take the next and almost inevitable step, and ask hon. Members of the House whether it was a matter of opinion to go still further, and believe we could not get a Communist state without revolution, and, therefore, the sooner we had a revolution the better it would be. But the right hon. Gentleman said that if you have a party or an individual openly stating throughout this country that the sooner we have a revolution the better, that remains purely a matter of opinion. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that if a man started by expressing as his

    2151
    opinion that you could not have a successful revolution if the troops were against it, and went on from that to appeal to the troops, that if that revolution came they should not be against it, would the right hon. Gentleman say that that was merely a statement of opinion, and not an incitement?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I understood I did answer that by saying that when action is proposed, then they are putting themselves outside the law, and prosecution ought to follow. I had one proviso, and that proviso was that, in the opinion of those responsible for instituting prosecution, the prosecution itself would not do more harm in the spread of the obnoxious opinion than by simply allowing the thing to go on, and watching it to see how far it is going.
    Major STANLEY: I hope I am not in any way misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the latter part of what he said was simply a question of expediency, which does not seem to have very much relevance to the rights which the individual possesses. It is difficult to see how one can draw the line. Surely, if a man goes throughout the length and breadth of the country expressing opinions which are going to lead others to act, and involve others in prosecution for that act, then he is inciting to that act, and the original mainspring of that prosecution is himself liable to be prosecuted.
    One can hardly believe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that this prosecution was a violation of the rights to free speech. Was it not more in the nature of a gesture? Were not hon. Members opposite a little too cold at Liverpool and a little more than kind now? After all, if we traced the matter out, what is the position at which you arrive? The Leader of the Opposition asked the House to join with him in a flight of prophetic vision. He foresaw the time when hon. Members opposite would be sitting on this side of the House, when a new star would, perhaps, lead the Government of the Socialist party and when hon. Members who now sit here would, as hon. Members sitting opposite now do, proclaim that of all Governments that have ever been that the new Government was the most in
    2152
    efficient, unwise, and unjust. Possibly matters would go beyond that, and that some hon. Members would be going throughout the country stating that the inefficiency, injustice, and unwisdom of the Government constituted a real danger to the State and to the present Constitution. That would try the loyalty of the Socialist party to its leader and its Whips, but, though they may remain as faithful as ever, there would be no hope of getting rid of the discussion, no hope of doing away with the danger to the Constitution. It would then be said by those in power: "We cannot help it, we must go outside the Constitution and do by force what we cannot do by legal means." Suppose the hon. Member for Ince went down to his constituency and told them to shoot? What would happen? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) would get up in his place and say with his usual paternal benevolence, "Boys will be boys." The right hon. Gentleman declared earlier this afternoon that not only would he never dream of prosecuting hon. Members now on this, then on the opposite side of the House for what is, after all, a perfectly legitimate use of the freedom of peace, but that further than that, if any of his humble supporters, perhaps less well informed on the rights of free speech, should lodge an information against us that he would lend us his own Solicitor-General to defend us. Such a proposition as prosecution was, he suggested, perfectly absurd. But would it not have been well if hon. Members had only recognised that before this Motion appeared on the Paper?
    The law as it stands in relation to the rights of free speech have not been changed one jot by this prosecution. They have neither been enlarged nor have they been restricted. Hon. Members opposite, including the right hon. Gentleman the leader, must have had it in their mind to try to frighten us by the stories as to what each one of them may be liable to in the future in the way of the severest penalties of the law. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley rose in his place the other day with a highly simulated terror to tell us that henceforward he might at any moment be subjected to the action of the Attorney-General. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett), who I am sorry not to see in

    2153
    his place, is, if one may say so, rapidly qualifying to become the "Fat Boy" of the Socialist party. He delights in making our flesh creep in threats of what he might, would or should do, or say, if something happens or does not happen. He knows that it is pretence that he is in danger owing to the state of the law. He knows as well as every other hon. Member that so long as he keeps to these anticipations, and does not pass from them into realisation, that he is as safe as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.
    Mr. LANSBURY: But I have had two doses of it!
    9.0 P.M.
    Major STANLEY: Twice bitten, three times shy. The law as it stands now is as it has always stood. It has not been altered by this prosecution. It remains, as the common people of England, apart from technicalities and apart from legalities, have always understood it to be. That is, that you may express any opinion, you may advocate any political change, you can urge that any political system may be changer, so long as you are not advocating or urging or encouraging people to believe and act upon the belief that the only way to obtain their desire is not within, but without the law, is by the means and facilities which the constitution provides, and not against the limitations which it imposes. Finally, may I say, as one of those Members who, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, owe their presence here to the terrors of the old women, that I and other hon. Members are just as zealous as hon. Members opposite for freedom of speech. We are just as determined as hon. Members opposite to resist any encroachment from one side or the other. We do believe just as strongly as they in the future of democracy, but we do not believe that freedom necessarily means license. We do not believe in a democracy which is based on force.
    Mr. DALTON: The Amendment that has been put down on the Paper appears to have two key words, one of them "timely" and the other "irresponsible.'' But "timely" is 11 years too late. It is not our fault that regard must be had to the historical background of the matter; it is the fault of the Home Secretary and his colleagues. The Attorney-
    2154
    General, too, will recognise the old legal quotation that
    "he who appeals to equity must come into court with clean hands."
    It is for that reason we find a difficulty in taking at their face value some of the protestations that we have heard from the other side of the House. The second key-word which I find in the Resolution is "irresponsible." The Resolution speaks of protecting His Majesty's subjects
    "from being seduced by irresponsible persons into the commission of crime."
    But when responsible persons, holding high positions in the party opposite, undertake this task the law stands with folded arms, particularly when administered by a weak-kneed Liberal Government. And not only do Fascists to-day, as has already been said, arm, and drill, and commit offences against the property of parties other than their own, but they can continually carry on their activities in hired rooms in Tory clubs. May I inform the House that the case which has been dealt with here in North Islington is not an isolated case. In North Islington the Fascists were engaged apparently on revolver practice in a hired room in a Conservative club. I was informed the other day in the West Country, when I was at Barn-staple, that Fascists had hired a room in the local Conservative club. What they do there hon. Members opposite possibly know better than I do. In 1914 it was not a question of seducing private soldiers; it was a question of seducing generals like General Gough from their duty to the Crown. At that time no action was taken upon far graver provocation than this, and it is for that reason that we cannot feel deeply impressed by the protestations of the Home Secretary this afternoon. No doubt he now regrets his Warrington speech. His excuse this afternoon was that it was only a little one, he had not gone so far as some of his colleagues, including, for example, the Secretary of State for India in the present Cabinet. He was apparently endeavouring to shift the blame off his blameless shoulders on to the broader shoulders of other Members of the present Government. Let me draw attention to one fact which I derived from a little publication entitled "Handbook for

    2155
    Rebels," a most valuable publication, as hon. Members opposite will find if they peruse it. It is regarding the landing of arms in April, 1914. The price of the book is 3d. It will be found on page 10 if any hon. Members have a copy. There I read this, taken from the "Northern Whig," a paper which, I believe, circulates in the North of Ireland:
    "Notwithstanding the proclamation of the Government and the vigilance of the Customs officers and police, a cargo of over 35,000 magazine rifles and 2,500,000 rounds of ammunition purchased on the continent was landed at Larne, Bangor and Donaghadee."
    The Home Secretary waxed indignant this afternoon about the receipt of money from foreign sources. Is it worse to receive money from Russia to-day than to receive rifles and ammunition from Germany in April, 1914, within a few months of the outbreak of the War, an outbreak the prospect of which was being discussed as a matter of dinner-table gossip among many of the people who organised this gun-running? In view of the contrast between the offences committed by those who to-day sit in the seats of power in this Conservative Government and the comparatively trivial offences committed by those who are now in gaol, I think we are entitled to put down our Motion and to draw attention to the traditional British policy which has been pursued in the past up to this time. The tradition of toleration of sedition was carried to its extreme limit in 1914. We are entitled to say that it should not be suddenly relaxed now by persons who at that time were deeply embedded in a constitutional conspiracy. I would like to ask, by way of further emphasising this contrast, when a Conservative conference will pass a resolution excluding Fascists from membership of the Conservative party? We are waiting for that. When will that be done?
    Though it is essential in the interests of fair play and clear understanding that these contrasts should be rubbed in, they are a comparatively minor part of the subject when it is regarded as a matter of public policy and expediency in the wise and the wide sense. Let me here reassert my belief that the whole effect of this prosecution has been to give a wholly gratuitous advertisement to an insignificent body of opinion. You have
    2156
    placed martyrs' crowns upon 12 obscure heads. The "Workers' Weekly" will no longer need its Russian subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has placed it well in funds, and its circulation has leapt up to astonishing heights as a result of this action. I say that I believe the Communists in this country, before this trouble was started, were a small, an insignificant and even a declining number of persons. Their chief achievement up to date was in 1921, when they assisted the present hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) to defeat the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in a bye-election at Woolwich. They have also assisted directly and indirectly large numbers of hon. Members opposite to occupy the seats in which they now sit. How many private soldiers, let alone generals, have been seduced from their duty by the pitiful pamphlets issued by the Communist party? Not one, or he would have been in the box at the trial.
    But the principle is greater than this particular application of it. The principle which we on this side of the House wish to enforce is that the fearless expression of opinion, however unpopular, and by however small a minority it may be held, is an essential condition of the decent working of our political life. The smaller the minority and the more insignificant, the more important it is that its opinions should be allowed free expression, in order that small minorities should not be trodden underfoot. In this particular case the principle of wisdom, the principle of wise toleration, has been completely overstepped; and the whole purpose, if the purpose, as we may assume, is that of preventing the spread of Communist doctrines, will defeat itself by giving a gratuitous advertisement and a tremendous uplift to these people, who have been martyred without any expectation on their part that they would be able in this way to get such a very large increase in their notoriety and in their publicity. For this reason I support the Motion.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I never dreamed that I should see the day when an ex-Prime Minister would stand at that box and say that the sole criterion as to whether a man is to be prosecuted for urging soldiers to mutiny should be whether it was a service or a dis-service

    2157
    to the State. If such a doctrine were adopted, it would be an excuse for any coward of a Cabinet Minister, a moral coward, to play the part of Kerensky—
    Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must quote me accurately—both verbally and in the intention which was given to it. I did not have any such meaning as he suggests— that a Cabinet Minister could do that without being prosecuted. It was a question of the importance and the size of the person and the organisation.
    Commander BELLAIRS: But the criterion is to be whether it is a service or a disservice to the State. I would point out that that would be made an excuse by Ministers. When justice was asked to take its course, the Minister would say "It is a disservice to the State," and that would be a complete excuse. I would rather if I could adopt the view taken by Sir Henry Maine, one of the greatest international lawyers the world has produced, who wrote:
    "If any Government should be tempted, even for a moment, to forego its function of compelling obedience to the law, it would be guilty of a crime which hardly any other virtue would redeem, and which century after century might fail to repair."
    I think that is the true criterion. On one point I can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He has once more got the cheers of those extremists who elected him to his position. He is tending more and more to play the part of Kerensky. He knows the compulsory powers which they can exercise. He knows what they did with the councils of action in 1920. He knows perfectly well how they compelled him to abandon the Campbell prosecution and how they made him sign the "Russian Treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"] I can well understand now why two years ago the right hon. Gentleman in his victory speech at the Albert Hall avowed his favourite hymn to be:
    "I do not ask to see the distant scene, One step enough for me."
    I am not going to labour the simile of the ostrich, because the ostrich does not bury its head in the sand, but it puts its head near the sand to hear a danger better. The right hon. Gentleman carries his head in his own fogs and en deavours to bring those fogs into this House. These men incited the British
    2158
    army to mutiny, and it is not denied that they were under the control of the Internationale in Moscow. It is not denied that even if regiments did not mutiny, supposing one single soldier was misled and sent to prison by their writing, there would be a great disgrace attached to that, and the family of that man, say, in some Kentish village could not hold up their heads among their fellowmen and would give up their home and would become exiles. The Government would be utterly lacking in their duty if they did not protect these soldiers and their families.
    Supposing there was riot as a result of the action of these Communists. Such a riot might be followed by martial law, and so we are to lose our own liberty in order that Moscow may have liberty to play its own wicked will with the people of this country. On this matter I am very sorry for one party because I have a great respect for the trade union party within the Labour party. When I saw a group of trade union leaders not long ago I was reminded of Goldsmith's lines:
    "Pride in their post, defiance in their eye,
    I see the lords of humankind pass by."
    But now it is the Communists that drive them. Like dogs they come when they are called, or like cats they turn away. Their glory has departed for ever. It is the Communists from whom the danger comes to-day. I am not impressed by the argument that the Communists are small in numbers. I know that the same argument was used in regard to the "Industrial Workers of the World" in America, and in Australia, where they did infinite harm. The Home Secretary of that time refused to stop them coming to England on the ground that they were small in numbers. They did much harm in this country, and they did so much harm in America that they actually, as a trial trip, blew up four different places simultaneously, as a preliminary to having a hundred at the same time in order to strike terror. It was then, in 1910, that President Taft took action. When the Macnamara brothers were imprisoned the Industrial Workers of the World endeavoured to call a general strike on the ground that it was a framed-up police plot. And what happened? The Macnamara brothers confessed, and the general strike did not

    2159
    come off in consequence. I know that there are several right hon. Members who have yet to speak, so I will content myself with saying in conclusion that throughout our Empire we have had many tribulations, and we have had cause to experience within the last few years since the War that
    "When sorrows tome, they come not as single spies but in battalions."
    Through all these tribulations one can see the hand of the Communists in India and elsewhere, and we can apply to them the words of Love's Labour Lost.
    "What did the Russian whisper in your ear?"
    There are only three methods of fighting this danger. The first is the relentless enforcement of the law against incitement to rebellion or mutiny and the exploitation of discontent by force. The second method is to clear the front of discontent on which these people batten. No-one can say that a Government which in one short year of office has relieved the anxieties of so many old people, and aided the widow and the orphan, which the Party opposite failed to do, is not entitled to say that it is clearing the front of the discontent upon which these people batten.
    My third point is that we are up against a Government propaganda in this country from Moscow, and we are entitled to meet Government propaganda by Government propaganda, and to enter the field and tell our people the truth, and when we do tell them the truth it will be to show them that on the hopeless horizon at which every Russian woman looks there is not one of them that, as a result of Communism in Russia, will not say with the Trojan woman—
    "I have seen the open hand of God,
    And in it nothing save the rod of my affliction."
    Sir ALFRED MOND: If I intervene for a few minutes at this stage it is because I do not want to give a silent vote upon this question I propose to vote for the Amendment that has been moved from the other side of the House, and I do so because I have been one of those who has on the platform more than once during the last month taken every opportunity of dealing with what I look upon as one of the greatest evils oppressing the industries of this country, and
    2160
    that is the growth of the Communist movement. The Prime Minister stated with great eloquence, and I imagine with great conviction, that the proper way to deal with a problem of this kind was not to sit at home with folded arms and leave it to be dealt with by conferences. I do not think it is sufficiently realised to what extent the growth of this movement has created a spirit of unrest and depression throughout the whole length and breadth of the country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh at that statement, but I cannot understand their attitude on this question.
    Mr. PURCELL: You be out of work awhile and you will soon understand it.
    Sir A. MOND: I can never understand why those hon. Members, who sit on the back Labour Benches, invariably cheer everything said in favour of Communism and jeer at everybody who talks against it. Every speaker who attacks Communism is met with interruptions from the Labour Benches, and I am being interrupted now in that way. If you are against Communism why are you not cheering me? I still believe it is a sham fight. I do not notice the ex-Colonial Secretary, who is very angry with what I said, in the House to-day, I should have liked to have heard a speech from him on this question. I do not know where he is. I should have liked to have heard comment on that speech by some of the hon. Members behind me. One of the greatest difficulties in this matter is, are we to believe the right hon. Gentleman who is leading this party in his denunciation—I believe him to be sincere —or is this poison eating into your ranks and are you afraid and this is the reason why your Front Bench has been compelled to put down a Motion in entire contradiction of the step they took 12 months ago? Never have we had such an extraordinary paradox. Go back to the 8th October of last year and what do you find? The prosecution of the very man who has now been convicted! That was not violation of free speech. I defy the right hon. Gentleman or any man on the Front Bench to find a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT to that effect. The then Attorney-General spent an hour in explaining to us that he withdrew that prosecution because he saw he could not get a conviction on the evidence. The man has been convicted now and he would

    2161
    have been convicted then. You did not then get up a case on the ground on which you are moving your Motion to-day. You had not the courage to do so. You took none of that line at all. The Attorney-General of the day took the line that he did not think he would get a conviction. I do not want to reopen that old story, but it is not a very creditable one.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is a Daniel come to judgment. The white hope of the Tory party.
    Sir A. MOND: The ex-Prime Minister was very wise indeed not to mention it in his address. We have heard to-day, and I associate myself thoroughly with those statements, that there was a time when I was in this House when hon. Members opposite performed actions for which I thought they should have been prosecuted and put in prison. I was not a member of the Government. They took at that time a view which I have always thought wrong and which I think wrong to-day. All this sophistry about murderers and all this story about advertisement leaves me cold. Whatever Government will not enforce the law of this country without all those technical considerations, just as they ought to have done at the time of Ireland, I say that Government is not a Government that the country may look to for their safety. They look to it to show that this poisonous propaganda is not allowed to spread. The people of this country fear that the Government are not standing between them and the doctrines which are equally abhorrent to every party in this House. I think it was idle to argue that free speech means the right to preach doctrines subversive of the very existence of the community. America is a great democracy; more democratic than we were.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is your foreign mind.
    Sir A. MOND: The American people will not tolerate those doctrines being taught in their country. Freedom is not license. Freedom cannot mean a right to break the laws of this country. The laws of this country are unalterable, and there cannot be a freedom of that character. The right hon. Gentleman in his eloquent speech at one moment argued that the way to deal with this question was to drag it to the light, and at the next moment contended that the Government
    2162
    prosecution attracted it to the light and had done infinite harm. He was on two horns of a dilemma. If you take the argument too far, then the law of every country will come to an end. The burglar and the criminal would be liberated and not punished by the civilised community because many people would think you were making a martyr of him. If you are to follow the advice given from those benches it is to look round every corner to see if the sky sign of Communism is showing and to try to judge whether, by this or that method, this or that case is to be condemned or not. We proceed on the lines of what is right; not on the lines of what we think expedient. I know the right hon. Gentleman, who I will call the Robespierre of his party, who always says what he thinks and is the only one who does; I heartily agree with him. The people of this country are tired of all this search for expediency. I am certain they will support the Government without fear or favour. I care not to what section of the community people belong, it is for them to carry out the elementary duty of Government and the upholding of law and order in this country.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: In a question like that which is before the House to-day, it is public opinion that really matters, and Members of this House are sent here to represent public opinion. It is also public opinion to which the Socialist party, if they were sincere in their professions of loyalty to democracy, would be the first people to hearken. I am not going to deal with the legal aspect of the case; whether the sentence which these men have received is too severe or not is not for me to say— it is a question for the Judge and jury; it is a question for the impartiality of British justice to decide. Those who support this Resolution to-day are not moving a Vote of Censure upon the present Government, because, if they maintain, as they do, that the sentence which these men have received is too severe, they are moving a Vote of Censure, not upon the Conservative Government or upon any existing Government, but upon the Judge who passed the sentence and upon the impartiality of British justice. On the other hand, if they are moving this Vote of Censure because these men were found guilty of the crimes with which they were charged,

    2163
    then, again, the charge is not against the present Government, but against the jury who found them guilty, and also against the late Solicitor-General, who was unable to conduct a sufficiently good case to obtain their acquittal. I am fortified now by the knowledge that these men have received a fair trial, and also by the knowledge that, under a Socialist regime such as these people have been endeavouring for some time to set up in this country, they would not have received a trial at all, and, instead of a sentence from a Judge, they would in all probability have had their sentence from the rifles of a firing party.
    Therefore, the only question left to this House to decide is whether these men should have been placed upon their trial or not, and when we discuss that question we must realise that these men were not tried for what they said, but for what they did. The Conservative party yields to none in its support of the expression of free opinion in this country. For instance, we do not mind when the Liberal party say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is not a fit and proper person to lead them; but if they tried to enforce their opinion by force, then they would be guilty of a crime, and it would be for the Government of the day to take action. When in this case the Opposition charge the present Government with being guilty of a disgraceful act in carrying out this prosecution, they are really themselves guilty of an offence; they are really the people who are responsible, and are taking up the time of this House in discussing a matter of which they themselves are guilty. I have seen it expressed in the Press by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. dynes), who, I understand, is to reply on behalf of the Opposition to-night, that, if these men were guilty of the charges brought against them, their sentence was not sufficiently severe, while, on the other hand, if they were not guilty they should have been acquitted. These men were found guilty by an impartial British jury. What, therefore, are we to think of a party which takes up the time of this House in moving a Vote of Censure on a Government which carries out its duty in prosecuting these
    2164
    men? All I can say is that the opinion of the man in the street is that the Communist Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) is in his spiritual home when he sits on those benches among the Socialist party.
    Mr. CLYNES: If we can set aside our partisan feelings or definite convictions on many questions which have found expression, and consider the Motion on the Paper in relation to the speech in its support by my right hon. Friend who began this discussion, I am convinced that most hon. Gentlemen who listen to me now will reach the conclusion that that speech triumphantly vindicated the terms of the Resolution on the Paper. It is the fate of those of us on this side of the House repeatedly to espouse unpopular causes; in due time they become powerful and popular. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) indicated a complete inability, which other hon. Members appear to share, to understand the position of those of us who support the free utterance of opinion in our public discussions, for the right hon. Gentleman says, in effect, "You refused at Liverpool to admit the Communists, therefore you ought to agree with us to put them in prison. If you differ from a man's convictions, what else is there to do with him than put him in gaol?" We on this side of the House have frequently condemned especially that kind of Liberalism which is represented by the right hon. Gentleman. Are we, then, to come to the conclusion, on the strength of that argument, that it is in gaol that he ought to be instead of being here at Westminster? We do not go so far.
    In the political life of this country, the Communists have been much more opposed to the Labour party than even to the Conservative party. If we measure opposition by the form and character of its direction, they have in their Press, in their speeches, in their sustained propagandist endeavours, done the most they could to weaken and destroy us. That does not in the least affect the question of right or wrong, or the claim which the Communists, like all of us, have for free speech in a country which we claim to be free. We are not likely to reap the slightest political capital from any action that we are taking in this House to-night. That is

    2165
    not our motive. Our motive is clearly expressed in the terms of the Resolution. We regard this prosecution as a violation of the traditional right of freedom of speech in Britain. It is an effort to repress honest opinion, however mistaken, however misguided; and, whoever else does not, we on this side of the House do prize liberty of opinion. It may be recalled that in the years of the war, when feeling ran very high, an opinion was indicated by many Noble Lords in another place, who were very hostile to the Labour party, which showed how indispensable it is, even in such a time as war-time, to assert the right of freedom of honest conviction in Britain. On many occasions it was Members of the Labour party who alone expressed their admiration for the action taken by Noble Lords in another place at that time. Therefore we ask you to judge Communists not by Russian but by British standards and traditions.
    What were they charged with? The charges were very serious and very formidable charges indeed. They were charged with conspiracy, with incitement to commit breaches of the Mutiny Act and with efforts to persuade soldiers and sailors into acts of revolt. Translated into laymen's language, those were the three charges. I say, speaking at least for myself, that if they were guilty of those crimes the light punishment they received is simply preposterous, especially when it is remembered that most of them were told they could go free if they would leave the Communist party. It surely is neither the tradition nor the course of British law. Here, we are told, are men doing their beet to pull down this country, seeking by insidious and organised means, and with the aid of foreign money, so it is said, to destroy Britain, and they placed seven of them, fairly comfortably, I suppose, in the second division of an English prison. If they have done such wrong, and threaten to do more, that is not the measure of punishment which should be meted out to them and it certainly will not act as any deterrent upon others who may share their views. The partisan proceedings in this case were obvious from the beginning. Recall the smug contentment of many Conservative speakers, including the Home Secretary on more than one-occasion in gleefully announcing to his
    2166
    own people what was certain to happen to these men now he had got them in the dock.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I never said anything like that.
    Mr. CLYNES: If hon. Members will read the "Times" of this day or the quotations which have already found their way into the OFFICIAL REPORT they will conclude that my paraphrase is not unfair. I ask hon. Members also to recall the shouts of triumph, the columns in the newspapers of partisan approval of the punishment and the sentences imposed upon these men. From the beginning it has savoured of the desire of one political party to put a few at least of another political party in gaol. And who were these men? I saw their names for the first time in some instances in reading the newspaper reports—Mr. Cant, Mr. Rust, Mr. Wintringham and one or two more. These almost absolutely obscure men, lifted by these proceedings to a level partaking partly of martyrdom and partly of heroism, it is alleged, were a party to the printing and circulating and publication of views which no policeman need have run after. Most elaborate efforts, I understand, were made to capture every kind of document, pamphlet, publication or speech which would in any way provide evidence. Anyone could have gone into one of their shops or one of the depots of the Communist party, wherever it might be, and buy these things at the very cheapest rate. It is very old and rusty and almost useless propaganda. An illegal association. Is that the conclusion? That certainly was the argument of the Home Secretary to-day. If so, why limit the number of offenders or of prisoners to 12? Why not have at least 13—there are at any rate a few thousands —if this is an illegal association? What is proposed with respect to their successors now that these 12 are in gaol? Are efforts to be made to suppress this association? Their papers are still printed and circulated. Depend upon it this week-end the membership of the Communist party will greatly increase and public sympathy for these men will he enormously aroused. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The answer is that there will be a rising public indignation when the

    2167
    public has had a chance, such as the Press might give it, to weigh the evidence and to see something of the motives which have inspired these proceedings. My right hon. Friend was, therefore entitled to dwell upon the public policy aspect of this issue, for it is that that concerns us. We are as greatly involved in the safety of our nation as any class or section in the nation. We are as greatly interested in the maintenance and defence of actions in support of public policy as any other party in the State, and in our judgment it is not wise to produce a net result from such action as has been taken which means deepening the present impression which many of us have received of inequality in the administration of British law, and which means enormously strengthening the force of Communist propaganda in this country. Is the Home Secretary aware that quite recently the leading spokesmen of the Communists have officially informed the country how much they lament the diminishing numbers and influence of that party? They have not been going up. They have been going down. Their stock now is raised by the folly of the Conservative Government. And why is it that those who claim a special association in sympathy and in the way of individualism with the Army and the Navy are the first always to show the least faith in the Army and Navy whenever an issue of this kind is raised? Why are you afraid of any British soldier or sailor surrendering to the appeals of Communist propaganda? Or again, why is it that not one soldier or sailor was produced who could be got to say he was in the slightest degree influenced by anything these men had ever said? The Army and the Navy are proof against the kind of propaganda alleged against these men. My conclusion is that the prosecution itself was no more than a clumsy calculated round-up of obscure political opponents. Money from Moscow! We have alleged that there are inequalities in the law, that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. We shall now have to go further, for it appears that we are to have convictions not upon evidence, not upon proof, but upon inference. The inference is that money had
    2168
    come from Moscow. It was nothing but inference. There was, of course, in the letters read by the Home Secretary today, some little tittle-tattle. If the right hon. Gentleman thought, in the course of the Court proceedings, that there was any value in evidence of that kind, how is it that it was not used in the Court proceedings? The Home Secretary, I think, must have confessed to himself, if to no-one else, that he had rather an uncomfortable half-hour this afternoon. I have a volume here, and I could cite many bearings of his Warrington speech in 1913, but I will spare the House quotations. But this "Grammar of anarchy" will be invaluable to those who in future controversies want to make themselves fully acquainted with what was said by several Members of the present Government, and by a few distinguished Members of the House of Lords.
    I gather from the Home Secretary that what he said in 1913 was said under great provocation and at a time of unusual political excitement. Let him bring the same sort of sympathy and perspective to bear in considering the quality or terms of many of the Communist speeches that have sent these men to gaol. What was it that the right hon. Gentleman had to contend against in 1913–14? It was the, possibility of Ireland getting Home Rule, of getting one Parliament—later a Conservative Government had to give them two Parliaments—and the difficulties which had to be faced then. The present is a time of very great political excitement. I do not think it is improper for me to quote a few significant words expressed towards the close of the recent case by the Judge who tried it:
    "This country has been singularly free from treason, insurrection, tumult and sedition."
    10.0 P.M.
    Those words are perfectly true. They are a tribute to the extraordinary submissiveness of the millions of impoverished poor in this country. In spite of bitter privation and of a very great sense of class wrong, the law has been observed, the soldiery have not had to be called out, and there has been no addition to the forces of our police. There has been a general observance of and regard for the law, a regard so great that one might fairly say that it would be a good thing if rich men always observed the law when

    2169
    they do not agree with it, as poor men have observed the law under the very greatest sense of personal trial and provocation. The law has been observed in spite of this suffering. Do not let us think that we have got rid of our problem merely by closing the prison gates upon a few active agitators or propagandists. It has been true throughout history and that truth, quite recently, has been applied to a number of hon. Members who sit behind me, that often the gateway to greater dignity, influence and authority is the gateway of the prison. Many men have been helped to seats in this House because for conscience sake and in the prosecution of a sense of right they have risked the punishment which they have had to endure.
    These are times of high political excitement. Mr. Pollitt was contrasted to-day in the most extraordinary way with Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Parnell. Pollitt and Parnell set up as parallel cases! The two names need only be mentioned to show the poverty of the argument with which the Home Secretary has tried to defend himself during the Debate this afternoon. Mr. Pollitt was kidnapped only a few months ago, but his offenders went unpunished. What is it to hon. Members opposite to kidnap a Communist.? It is only a joke. [HON. MEMBERS: "Were they tried?"] That is the trouble. They were tried, and it is in the inequality of these verdicts, these decisions, that we have this deepening sense of injustice as between class and class in this country. [Interruption.]
    Captain GEE rose—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to impugn the verdict of the Court. That would be out of order.
    Mr. CLYNES: I am impugning nothing. I ask the House to draw their own conclusions. I am content to draw attention to the dissimilarity of the verdicts.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in order in aspersing the conduct of the Government, but he-would not be in order, in accordance with the established practice of this House, in aspersing a verdict found by the Court.
    Mr. CLYNES: I am satisfied that you have mentioned the difference.
    Mr. W. THORNE: The Judge was a notorious Tory, to start with.
    Mr. CLYNES: I will mention another case. When Labour property is seized, and when the man who drives a Labour van has a revolver pointed at his head and he is told to surrender, it appears that that is not to be regarded as a crime punishable by law. I submit this point to the right hon. Gentleman who is to follow me, that the class which above all others in this country has property to preserve and which has possession to maintain is the class that can least afford to do anything which encourages the belief that we are reaching an era of one-sided law. Whatever the Government may do in pursuance of its political purposes, we ask that this, as other Governments, shall maintain equity as between man and man and section and section. We allege that in this instance it has not been clone, that the public good has not been served and that public policy is not in the hands of the right men at this moment on the basis of their past, and that if these Communists had to be prosecuted and imprisoned, His Majesty's present Ministers were not the right men for the purpose.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): In the last quarter of a century it has often been my lot to defend the honour and reputation of many of His Majesty's subjects, but this is the first occasion on which I have had to appear arraigned before this High Court of the House of Commons to defend myself. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Irish deportees?"] I want to make this quite clear—that, whereas the Resolution seeks to condemn the action of the Government, it is right that I should tell the House at once that the. responsibility for this prosecution, both in its initiation and in its conduct, rests both by Statute and in fact upon the Attorney-General, and upon nobody else. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not what the Home Secretary said!"] I hear an hon. Member opposite interrupting to say that is not what the Home Secretary said. The Home Secretary quite accurately told the House that, having certain information in his possession, he placed that information before me, in order that I might

    2171
    consider the proper course to pursue, I can take the story a little further.
    I formed the view that the facts laid before me disclosed a criminal conspiracy against the State. I laid the documents before the best criminal counsel whom I could find, and I had advice which entirely confirmed my opinion. Having ascertained, as I thought it my duty to do, that in so far as the Government were concerned, they knew of no reason why, in the national interest, such prosecution should not be initiated, I decided that the prosecution should at once take place. Having made that statement to the House, it is right that I should add that I do not come here in any spirit of contrition or of apology. ID my opinion, I should have failed in my duty to the State had I taken any other course than that which I adopted.
    It has been said against me this evening that this prosecution was rested entirely upon documents, and not upon speeches or upon the production of seduced soldiers, sailors or airmen. That charge is well founded, for I deliberately rested this case upon the published and official documents of these people, who were selected as being the responsible heads in this country of the Communist conspiracy, in order that I might satisfy the public and the jury, if the facts warranted the inference, that these people, in advocating the doctrines which they published in their official documents, were engaged in a criminal conspiracy against the State.
    The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us that the speeches on which these Communists were condemned were made "in the heat of the moment under political stress." Let me tell him I deliberately excluded any evidence as to any speech by any man who was prosecuted, and therefore his statement that they were prosecuted upon statements made in the heat of the moment is one which I think he will regret having made. The right hon. Gentleman seems indeed to live in a curious world of his own. He has told us that he had never heard of any of these prisoners. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO; some of them."]
    Mr. CLYNES: Some three or four.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He had heard of nine of them, but not of the other three. Let me tell him that such information as we have led us to believe that the 12 men we selected were the responsible heads in this country of this illegal organisation, and had we had evidence to show that there were other people equally responsible, my right hon. Friend's ambition to see the number increased would have been satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was supporting this Motion because he regarded the prosecution as a violation of the traditional rights of free speech which this country enjoys. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman remembers that one of these very defendants was prosecuted for one of these very publications in the time of the Government of which he was a distinguished member. When that prosecution was withdrawn, and the conduct of the Government of the day in withdrawing it was challenged, the defence which was put up then by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition—I have the speech here—was not the defence that this was a prosecution which infringed the traditional right of free speech. It was a defence which said that there was one thing, and one thing only, which had influenced the Government of the day, and that was that, although the law had been broken, it was giving a gratuitous advertisement to proceed with the prosecution.
    I can understand that argument, but it is not the case which is made in this Motion. Is the traditional right of free speech one which is enjoyed only when a Conservative Government is in power? If not, why did it not exist last year, when Mr. Campbell was prosecuted, and when there was no question of it being an infringement of the right of free speech, but only an unnecessary advertisement of an obscure criminal? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
    The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us that, if these men were guilty of the crimes of which they were convicted, they suffered too light a punishment. If he went to his friends in Moscow, he would find they entirely agree with that view. Under the Moscow code, the penalty for the offence of which these men were convicted is death, with confiscation of all property. And I ought to

    2173
    add that not only these men, but every member of the organisation of which they were the heads is liable to the, same penalty, with this proviso only, that if extenuating circumstances he proved, they may be let off with a sentence of not less than five years' solitary confinement, with the confiscation of all their property! No wonder the right hon. Gentleman was astonished at the leniency with which we treated these men! He told us that during this week-end these men would become martyrs, and that public indignation would rise. He was right in saying this week-end, and not last weekend, because last week-end the public knew only the facts of the trial and the conviction. It is only this week-end that martyrdom has been awarded to the men by the Motion which we are now discussing. He told us that the party of which he is a very prominent member, was in the habit of espousing unpopular causes, only to find that presently they become popular. I wonder whether that was the real reason for this Motion?
    I see in his place now my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He told us that he was not going to vote either way in this Division. If I did not misunderstand him, he explained that he was quite satisfied with the conduct of the case and the justice of the decision, but he was doubtful as to the policy of the prosecution, and he said that he was waiting to hear the case made to-night. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stayed in the House during the past two hours, he would have heard the case made against the Motion. He would have heard it made, first, by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who told us that there was no difference between the Socialists and the Communists, except in their methods —that these men preached violence as a means of attaining their ends, and that in this country the violence would be more terrible than in any other country.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to misinterpret me. I said that, if violence took place in this country, I believed that it would be more terrible here than anywhere else. The "if" makes a difference.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman told us, first, that these people
    2174
    teach violence, and then that that violence was a more terrible thing here than anywhere else. I will try to find for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley someone else whose authority he will, perhaps, be more ready to accept. Had ho been here, and heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), he would have heard from that right hon. Gentleman's lips a most eloquent defence of the Government action, the most unqualified approval of the prosecution, and the most convincing reasons why the Government ought to be supported in the Lobby. A little later I hope to be able myself to give to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a few reasons why this case was properly brought. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in his opening speech, expressed some anxiety as to what was or was not legal in view of the prosecution which had been instituted. He said he was anxious as to whether some of his own publications might not come under the ban of the law. He told the House how, some two and a half years ago, he gave to a lawyer, who was very grateful for his kindness, a present of certain books on Socialism, written by the right hon. Gentleman himself. That lawyer has since become Attorney-General, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman at once that he is in no danger at all. The right hon. Gentleman gave a very accurate answer to his own questions. I think I am quoting him with substantial accuracy, though I am not giving the ipsissima verba of his speech, when I say that he expressed his anxiety to know what was legal and what was illegal and asked, "Supposing a man honestly believed that fundamental changes must come in society, involving the overthrow of the existing form of Government, was hot such a man entitled to express that opinion?" He also asked, "Supposing such a man believed"—as the right hon. Gentleman was careful to say he did not —"that those fundamental changes must inevitably result in civil war, was not he entitled to express that opinion?" The answer to both those questions is that he is entitled to express that opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman himself went on, and said, "Supposing he takes steps to create the revolution, instead of stating simply that it is inevitable, he is

    2175
    then Committing a criminal offence." The right hon. Gentleman is entirely accurate, and that is the offence of which these men were convicted. I ask the House to have patience to let me read one passage of my opening speech to the jury. I do so because it answers the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I think it will show him whether or not I fairly stated the question which had to be tried. This is what I said to the jury at the opening of my address:
    "First of all I will say this to you—whatever else you do, do not let any political views which you may have weigh with you one way or the other. I do not know what the politics of any of you are. or indeed if you have any politics. But it would be wrong to convict any one of these defendants because you thought that the political aims they had in view were not such as you agreed with. It would be wrong for you to acquit any one of the defendants because you agreed that some of the changes which they advocated were desirable, if you were satisfied that the means which they sought to adopt and the objects which they were setting before themselves were means and objects which the law prohibited. In this country free speech is the right of everybody. Every man is entitled to criticise the Government: every man is entitled to criticise our public institutions; every man is entitled to try to persuade his fellow-citizens that the Government ought to be overthrown, or that these institutions ought to be changed. But as the necessary corollary to the right of free speech. and, in fact, as its first bulwark, it is important to remember that because one has the right to try to persuade one's fellow citizens of the correctness of our political views, and the desirability of giving effect to them, it is essential that in doing so we shall keep inside the law. You may persuade people to vote for a different form of Government or a different form of Society. If you succeed in persuading the majority of the electors in favour of your view, you will achieve your end. What you may not do is to attempt to stir up your fellow citizens. whom you know you cannot persuade in sufficient numbers to vote for the changes you advocate, to stir them up to attempt forcibly to overthrow the rule of the majority and the Government as be law established. The charge which we make here, as I have indicated to you, is a charge that these defendants, as the English heads of the Communist party, were preaching and advocating the forcible overthrow of the Government, and as a necessary preliminary, the seduction of the King's Army and Navy from their allegiance, loyalty, and obedience."
    I have ventured to read that extract, because I want the House to see the light in which this case was presented to the
    2176
    jury, and the question upon which the jury had to pronounce. It was not a question of freedom of speech or of political opinion. It was a question of whether or not these men were proved guilty of a criminal conspiracy, to try and forcibly overthrow the Government of this country and, in order to do that, to seduce the Army and Navy so that they could not be relied upon to do their duty. I have listened to-night to at least one speech from a Communist Member, the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). I have listened to another speech from the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who at least was not unsympathetic to the Communist point of view. Those two speeches between them took an hour and three-quarters to deliver, and I think the best—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: You are wrong. Try and tell the truth!
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the best commentary upon them is this—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Tell the truth.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The best commentary I can make on those two speeches is this, that I find in the instructions laid down for all obedient Communists to follow, this statement:
    "Parliament is a fraud and a sham, but Parliament is very useful for propaganda purposes."
    In putting before the jury the charge which we sought to prove, I was careful to adopt as the definition of sedition tests which were put forward by my opponent in the case, the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). And I would like, if I may, to say this in parenthesis, that no imputation ought to rest either upon the hon. and learned Gentleman or upon his party by reason of the fact that he appeared for the defendants in that case. It is an honourable tradition of the Bar that we will appear for any accused person and, as far as in our ability lies, we will see that he gets fair trial and fair play. The hon. and learned Member was doing nothing more than his duty as a member of the Bar. and it does not imply any association of Socialism with Communism that he should have been chosen to represent those men. I think it is right that I should make that explanation, as head

    2177
    of the Bar, in order that there should be no misconception in the public mind in regard to that matter.
    The hon. and learned Member propounded two or three tests, and I took each of the tests which he propounded, and proceeded to cite the passages which showed that, on applying those tests, these defendants were unquestionably guilty of the offence with which they were charged. I do not propose to try and repent that performance in this House, because it took me just five hours to go through, but I would like, first of all, to say a word about the suggestion which is so freely and so loosely bandied about, that this is an interference with the right of free speech. If by free speech is meant the right to express an opinion about the existing state of society, about the desirability of a radical change, about the wickedness of the Government or of any particular class of society, that, of course, is the right which every Englishman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Englishman? "]—I mean Briton—enjoys, and which was not impugned in this case.
    But if the suggestion be that if a man honestly believes an armed revolt is desirable, he is not to be stopped from trying to bring it about, because that is interfering with his right of free speech, then I entirely dissent from that doctrine, which would be fatal to and subversive of any organised Government. According to that argument, you would shoot the soldier for mutiny, but you would let off the man who dupes him by incitement to mutiny, because you would be "interfering with his right of free speech"! You would hang the murderer, but let off the man who preached murder to him, because his traditional right of free speech must not be taken away! No such doctrine has ever been practised in any free country, and Heaven forbid that it should ever gain ground in this country. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about 1913 in Ireland?"] I thought the complaint was that there had been no prosecution.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition told us that they on that side of the House could not overlook the contrast. May I tell him that we on this side of the House find a difficulty in overlooking the contrast between the Motion he has moved and the speech by which he has supported it. The Motion which
    2178
    he moved bases the criticism on the violation of the traditional right of free speech. The speech by which he justified the Motion did not attempt, so far as I understood him, to vindicate the right of these men to commit the act of which they were convicted, but suggested that it was bad policy as a matter of advertisement of the Communist party. With the question of policy I will deal, and the question of policy is a proper one to consider by those who have all the facts before them. But it is not a question of right of free speech. It is not a question of any right to the accused person, but merely a question of what is best in the interests of the State.
    I really think this is the best way to bring home to the House of what it is that these men were convicted. Let me try, not, indeed, to repeat what I said in Court, but to indicate one or two of the main tests which were applied, and one or two of the salient passages with which we sought to satisfy the test. The first test which the hon. and learned Gentleman propounded in Court was as to whether these documents were seditious or not. He said the test was, "Was their object to lead to civil war?"—a very good and very fair test, which he took out of a well-known authority. I accepted that challenge, and I looked at one or two of their documents.
    May I give the House, and especially the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, one or two quotations which tend to supply the answer to that question? The earliest document which we had was the Second Congress of the Communist International, and the resolutions of the Communist International expressed enactment on every member of every Communist party all over the world. This gathering was held in Moscow, where all are held. [HON. MEMBERS: "The year, and the date?"] This one was 1920, the earliest, I think, but there will be some later ones presently. This is the first quotation that I want to give. It answers the question of the object—to lead to civil war. It says:
    "The aim of the Communist International is to organise an armed struggle for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie."
    Let me read the next one. This is a year later, in 1921. This also was at Moscow. They are all at Moscow.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Was it not held in Rome?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: They were all, in fact, held in Moscow— [Interruption]—where the money and the orders both come from. In 1921 they said:
    "The Communist party must in this manner influence the widest circles of the Proletariat by word and deed, that every economic or political conflict, given the necessary combination of circumstances, may develop into civil war, in the course of which it will become the task of the Proletariat to conquer the power of state."
    That is what I call trying to lead to civil war.
    This is the programme of the Communist Party International, which was adopted at the Fifth Communist International held in Moscow in December, 1924, and January, 1925. This is what they say in their introduction, as being the fundamental principles of the Communist International. The preface openly advocates the violent overthrow of the bourgeois order by means of the Communist Revolution.
    Mr. STEPHEN: That is after the General Election.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman seems to have General Elections, like King Charles' head. "on the brain." They say that
    "In the unavoidable premise for the transition from Capitalism to Communism the starting point, without which the further evolution of mankind is entirely impossible is thus the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois State, and the seizure of power by the working class, which has to set itself the first and most important task of suppressing the enemy and firmly establishing the new régime. The seizure of power by the Proletariat is nothing else than the destruction of the bourgeois State apparatus by the fighting organs of the Proletarian class struggle and the organisation of a new Proletarian class power—
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear" and Laughter.]—I am not responsible for the language—
    "an essential part of the seizure of power by the working class is the destruction of the bourgeois monopoly of arms and the concentration of arms in the hands of the Proletariat. During the course of the struggle the main object in view must be the disarmament of the bourgeoisie and the arming of the Proletariat."
    2180
    [Interruption.] I thought the hon. Member would be converted. Let me give him another one—
    "In order to achieve victory the workers must forcibly smash the capitalist state, and organise their own state machinery for the service."
    Mr. W. THORNE: The extracts are all the same.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member says they are "all the same.'' I am glad to agree with him. They are all the same.
    Mr. THORNE: You need not worry about them.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The House will remember that the hon. Member for North Battersea, when he was challenged as to whether or not the forcible overthrow of the State was part of the Communist programme, was anxious to disclaim anything of the kind. Let me give, for his benefit at least, one more quotation from the great master, Lenin. It was published in English in this country in June of this year, and it-has a foreword which explains that it includes only that which has an immediate interest for the English youth, and that it is published "in order that each Young Communist should make the teachings of our master his own "—
    "Our slogan should be 'Arm the Proletariat for the purpose of overcoming, expropriating and disarming the bourgeoisie.' This is the only possible tactic for the revolutionary class."
    It goes on to develop that at great length, and later gives as "the working-class mother's exhortation to her son" this passage:
    "You will soon be grown up. You will he given rifles; take them and learn how to use them Military science is indispensable to Proletarians, but not for shooting on their own brothers, or on the workers of other countries, as in the present War, and as you are advised to do by the social traitors. You must learn how to fight against the bourgeoisie of your own country, so as to put an end to exploitation, poverty and wars, not by pious resolutions, but by overcoming and disarming the bourgeoisie."
    I am afraid the hon. Member for North Battersea had not made the teaching of his master his own when he disclaimed the use of force.
    I want now to come to the second count, namely, the seducing of the armed forces of the State. May I here explain that it is an entire mistake to imagine, as hon.

    2181
    Members seem to do, that we prosecuted these men under the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1797. We prosecuted them at Common Law for conspiracy. One of the counts in that conspiracy was that they were joining together to conspire to incite soldiers to mutiny, and also induce other people to do the same. And incitement to mutiny was an offence at Common Law long before it was an offence by Statute. The only effect of the Statute was to render it a felony, punishable by death at that time. We prosecuted for conspiracy, under which the maximum penalty was two years' hard labour. The question I want to ask the House to address itself to is, "Did these men incite the forces of the Crown to mutiny?" because if they did, if they attempted to do that by publishing these documents, they were clearly guilty of trying to create revolution, and not merely expressing the right of free speech. I want again to quote one or two passages, first of all from the draft programme of the Young Communist International. [HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate it!"] Perhaps this document may be familiar to some hon. Members opposite, but possibly other hon. Members of this House might like to hear it. It states that Communists know that the armed uprising of the proletariat against capitalism is necessary in the fight for liberation, and it was necessary to win the bourgeoisie over to its side, in order to prevent the guns being directed at the working classes by the soldiers, and no longer be used as a weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie, but could be used by the revolutionary proletariat in the interests of the workers, and for the success of the armed uprising. That is for the youth to seduce the Army. To some hon. Members of the Socialist party these documents seem not only familiar but amusing. No wonder when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made his speech, almost the only passage which evoked no applause from his own side was that in which he disclaimed all connection with Communism.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Why do you not answer the arguments instead of reading quotations?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Here is another quotation—this time from the Executive which met in March, 1925, at
    2182
    Moscow. The speaker was an English representative—Mr. Gallacher—and this is what he said in Moscow:
    "We must give special attention to disrupting the armed forces of capitalism. Anti-militarist work must be carried on in the most energetic manner if we are to be worthy of the name of Bolsheviks. It is said that the revolutionary wave has passed. But it is rising again. We see it arising in England and in the Colonies, and this revolutionary wave will sweep from England and the Colonies over Europe, and when the crisis comes we shall have to answer several questions, and one of them is, 'Have we disrupted the military forces of the State?'"
    Those quotations might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but I would like to come down to more recent events. At the end of July last, there was in this country a most critical situation, and one in which unwise language and action might easily have provoked serious consequences. On the 31st July we find in the "Workers' Weekly"—which, according to the Communists themselves, has a weekly circulation of 50,000—published on the front page under a, big heading,
    "Paralyse all industry until demands are granted."
    Then follow a long series of black letter sentences, which wind up in this way:
    "In the event of the Military being drafted into any industrial centre, the workers must fraternise with the soldiers."
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I wonder whether hon. Members opposite will be as enthusiastic over the rest of the sentence?
    "Workers must fraternise with the soldiers and convince them that they must only use their arms on behalf of their own class."
    I am glad to notice it is only the Back Benches opposite that cheer. The House will notice—
    Mr. MACLEAN: Do you want them to shoot their own class?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right of free speech seems to be rather a one-sided idea. The House will notice that the exhortation is not merely, not to use their arms against the workers, but to use them only on behalf of their own class, which means, in Communist phraseology, to use them against the officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, that is a legal twist!"] Let me see if it is a "legal

    2183
    twist." That was followed up a week afterwards by publishing, and spreading all over the country, a pamphlet signed in the name of "Wintringham," one of the defendants. The reason it was in Wintringham's name—as we saw from one of the letters—was that they were afraid that, it being seditious, he would be prosecuted for it, and they wanted only one of them to be convicted. This is what was published to all the soldiers they could get hold of:
    "Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, definitely let it be known that neither in the class war nor in a military war will you turn your guns on your fellow-workers, but will use your arms on the side of your own class Refuse to fight for Profits. Turn your weapons on your oppressors."
    Was it a "legal twist" just now? What they meant was not merely, "Do not shoot the workers, but shoot the officers." If the hon. Gentleman will study the. "Workers' Weekly" as closely as I have had to do, he will find that the officers are defined as being of the "oppressing class" and as being the "satellites of the oppressing class who are exploiting." Fourteen thousand copies of that document, according to the defendants themselves, were distributed. They are being used as "enclosures from workers to their friends and relatives in the forces." They are being got to the men for whom they are intended. "Specially good work has been done by members of the Young Communist League in this campaign." What is the good of an hon. Member saying, "You have not produced a soldier who has been incited to mutiny"? Why, they themselves say they have incited 14,000 of them!
    I have not any time to go through more quotations, but I think the quotations which I have given will be sufficient to satisfy any impartial person that these men were engaged, as the jury found they were engaged, in a seditious conspiracy against the State; that their object was to produce an armed uprising against the State; and that, as a necessary preliminary to that being successful, they were endeavouring to disintegrate the Army and Navy, so that when the struggle came, they could not be relied upon to defend law and order. If that campaign is being carried on, then, in my submission, we who are responsible for administering the law in this country would
    2184
    have been guilty of the gravest dereliction of duty had we allowed that campaign to go on unchecked and unpunished—if, when we had the evidence which was sufficient to satisfy 12 independent jurymen that these men had committed this offence, we were, for fear of criticism—for fear of being told that we were interfering with free speech, for fear of bring told that we were giving them an advertisement—to allow that sort of campaign to go on unchecked, and wait until the unhappy soldiers and sailors were successfully duped, and then punish them for the crime to which they had been incited by this mischievous propaganda, from which only our interference could protect them in the future.
    I, at least, as long as I have the honour to be Attorney-General, shall do my best to see to it that, when crimes of this kind are unmasked, they shall be prosecuted in the Courts of Law. And, if those who are guilty of them can be proved to have committed that offence which the jury have here held that they have committed, then I think it is high time that the law should be vindicated, and that these treasonable practices should be put an end to.
    It has been said, What about the other members of the Communist body? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the men who stole the 'Herald' van!"] It is a little difficult to deal with one case at the same time as another. I am not afraid of dealing with the Fascisti when the time comes. At present I am defending myself from a charge of having violated the traditional British right of freedom of speech and publication of opinion in prosecuting these men. I hope I have satisfied the House of Commons that, so far from its being an interference with free speech, it is a vindication of the law, not from expression of opinion, but from revolutionary and treasonable acts; that these men have only received the punishment which is their just due, and that it is high time that the dupes in the country should be told what it is that these men were trying to achieve, so that they may sever themselves from a mischievous and seditious organisation.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

    The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 351.s

    Division No. 433.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Mayday, Arthur

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Baker, Walter

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snell, Harry

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Bromley, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Konworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Charieton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Lansbury, George

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lunn, William

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackinder, W.

    Viant, S. p.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Duncan, C.

    Montague, Frederick

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dunnico, H.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Weir, L. M.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murnin, H.

    Westwood, J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)

    Paling, W.

    William, T. (York, Don Vallay)

    Greenall. T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Ritson, J.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Warne and Mr. B. Smith.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Albery, Irving James

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Cope, Major William

    Alexander', Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Couper, J. B.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K,

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Burman, J. B.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Crook, C. W.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Balniel, Lord

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Campbell, E. T.

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Davidson, J.(Hertrd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Beamish' Captain T. P. H.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Beckett Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Benn Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Berry Sir George

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Drewe, C.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Chilcott. Sir Warden

    Duckworth, John

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Christie, J. A.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Brass, Captain W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    England, Colonel A.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Clayton, G. C.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Bridge-Nan. Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    2186

    2187

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Roberts, Samuel (Hertford, Hertford)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Finburgh, S.

    Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Fleming, D. P.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Rye, F. G.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Salmon, Major I,

    Forrest, W.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Loder, J. de V.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Looker, Herbert William

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lord, Walter Greaves

    Sandon, Lord

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lougher, L.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavs D.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Savery, S. S.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Gates, Percy

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Lumley, L. R.

    Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Gee, Captain R.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's. Univ., Belfast)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Skelton, A. N.

    Grace, John

    Macintyre, Ian

    Slaney, Major p. Kenyon

    Grant, J. A.

    McLean, Major A.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(Wth's'w, E)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Smithers, Waldron

    Gretton, Colonel John

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Storry Deans, R.

    Hanbury, C.

    Meller R. J.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Merriman, F. B.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Sugden, Sir Willfrid

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Stuatham)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Hilton, Cecil

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Vaughan Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Nelson Sir Frank

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

    Neville, R. J.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Molt, Captain H. P.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Nuttall Ellis

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford Luton)

    Wells. S. R.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Oman, sir Charles William C.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

    Perring, William George

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Home Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Huntingfield, Lard

    Philipson, Mabel

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Pilcher, G.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Womersley, W. J.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Preston, William

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Radford, E. A.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Raine, W.

    Wragg, Herbert

    James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthber)

    Ramsden, E.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

    Colonel Gibbs.

    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Mr. THURTLE: It is a doctrine of the working classes—
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

    ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constiuting the West Midlands Electricity District and establishing and incorporating the West Midlands Joint Electricity District which was presented on the 25th day of June, 1925, be approved, subject to the following modifications, namely:—
    In paragraph 2 (1) of the First Annex, page 23, insert the words '(e) Persons employed in connection with the supply of electricity in the district hereinafter called 'workers in the industry')';
    In paragraph 2 (2) of the First Annex, page 23, insert the words ' (e) Workers in the industry (jointly) … 1; '
    After paragraph 2 (8) of the First Annex, page 24, insert the following new paragraph:—
    (9) The representative of workers in the industry employed by authorised undertakers in the district (including those employed by the joint authority) shall be chosen by the employés' organisations which are designated to the Commissioners, in the case of the first appointment, and to the joint authority there after, by the Minister of Labour, as organisations having members in the employment of the said undertakers and the joint authority.
    Renumber sub-paragraphs (9), (10), and (11), page 24, as ' (10), (11), and (12),' respectively.
    In Part II of the First Annex, page 26, insert the words ' (e) Workers in the industry (jointly) … 1; '
    In Part II of the First Annex, page 26, substitute '22' for '21,' as the total."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Urban Districts of Sutton-in-Ashfield, Huthwaite, and Kirkby-in-Ashfield, and parts of the Rural Districts of Basford and Skegby, in the County of Nottingham, and part of the Rural District of Blackwell, in
    2190
    the County of Derby, which was presented on the 6th day of August. 1925, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Urban District of Stanley, in the County of Durham, which was presented on the 6th day of August, 1925, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Urban District of Grange, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 6th day of August, 1925, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Urban district of Quorndon and part of the Rural District of Barrow-upon-Soar. in the County of Leicester, which was presented on the 6th day of August, 1925, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Thurmaston and parts of the rural districts of Billesdon, Barrow-upon-Soar, and Blaby, in the county of Leicester, which was presented on the 6th day of August, 1925, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley]

    MAIL CONTRACT (FAIR ISLE AND SUMBURGH).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the contract, dated the 17th day of September, 1923, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and Messrs. Stout, of Fair Isle, Shetland, for the conveyance of mails between Fair Isle and Sumburgh (Shetland), he approved."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Far be it for me to strike any note of discord in the harmonious proceedings which have characterised our Debates to-night, but I hope it will not be taken as any evidence of controversy if I ask, Is this matter to be put through the House at

    2191
    this late hour without any Scottish Minister being on the Front Bench? The House has given the Minister of Transport a number of important orders, and thereby exercised a very generous discretion, and we ought not to pass this Motion without a very clear explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: This requires a great deal of explanation. I do not wish to raise the whole question of the postal service in the Islands of Scotland; but this is one point that should be raised. At least the Postmaster-General, who is to some extent responsible, should give us some explanation. At the present time in the Western Island there is great discontent among the inhabitants against the present service of steamships as between island and island and as between the islands and the mainland. We are asked, without the Minister responsible being in his place, to pass this Motion, which may in itself be quite innocent, but the Postmaster-General should at least give us some idea as to whether these boats will be in something like decent condition. At the present time there are men unemployed on the Clyde, and you have boats carrying mails —owned by various firms—which are a disgrace to the merchant service of our country. I know that the Postmaster-General will say that this is a small matter, that it is only a matter of a ferry boat. But whether the boat be large or small the principle is the same. I have raised the question of the postal service in these islands many times.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): May I point out that the Motion before the House deals only with the service in the Shetlands.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: These questions are all bound up. On Second Readings we are always allowed a fairly general latitude. I do not want to strain that latitude, but Shetland and the Western Isles are all part of the same problem, and I hope the Postmaster-General—who is well known for his courtesy, a courtesy which hardly characterises most of his colleagues—will give us a statement in connection with Shetland, that it will not be like the service in the Western Islands, but that Shetland will get better treatment.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell Thomson)rose—
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is this exempted business?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Then I object.
    Sir W. MITCHELL THOMSON: I am sorry. It means that the Islands will not get it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Do not be insolent. We must have time to discuss these things.
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

SCOTLAND.
  HOUSING (SPECIAL SUBSIDY).
  HOUSING (SPECIAL SUBSIDY).
  OMNIBUSES, GLASGOW (SPEED).
  OMNIBUSES, GLASGOW (SPEED).
  SHALE OIL MINES (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  SHALE OIL MINES (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  LAND DRAINAGE (GRANTS).
  LAND DRAINAGE (GRANTS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  TANKER FLEET.
  TANKER FLEET.
  SUBMARINE SERVICE (ACCIDENTS).
  SUBMARINE SERVICE (ACCIDENTS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  CORPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.
  CORPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.
  PERSONNEL (COST).
  PERSONNEL (COST).
  SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.
  SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.
  PHARMACISTS.
  PHARMACISTS.
  NEW ENTRANTS (PENSIONS).
  NEW ENTRANTS (PENSIONS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.
  SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. SILVESTER).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. SILVESTER).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  PENSION RIGHTS (VALUE).
  PENSION RIGHTS (VALUE).
  CASUAL WARDS, OXFORDSHIRE.
  CASUAL WARDS, OXFORDSHIRE.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  SILK DITTIES.
  SILK DITTIES.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
AGRICULTURE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  PRODUCE (MARKING).
  PRODUCE (MARKING).
  COMMUNIST PROSECUTION.
  COMMUNIST PROSECUTION.
  STEEL MANUFACTURE (ROYALTIES AND EMPLOYMENT).
  STEEL MANUFACTURE (ROYALTIES AND EMPLOYMENT).
  COAL AND STEEL PRICES.
  COAL AND STEEL PRICES.
  CARNARVON BAY LIGHTSHIP.
  CARNARVON BAY LIGHTSHIP.
FOOD COUNCIL.
  SHORT WEIGHT.
  SHORT WEIGHT.
  MEETINGS.
  MEETINGS.
  FISH PRICES.
  FISH PRICES.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  JURY SERVICE.
  JURY SERVICE.
  ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS).
  ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE CALL BOXES, WEDNESBURY.
  TELEPHONE CALL BOXES, WEDNESBURY.
  DIRECTION SIGNS.
  DIRECTION SIGNS.
  RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
  RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Reply to the loyal and dutiful Address of the House of Lords, passed on Monday, November 23, on the occasion of the death of Queen Alexandra, was delivered by the Earl of Cromer as follows:—
"I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address and for the expression of your condolence on the death of My beloved Mother.
"I greatly value this renewed assurance of the interest which you have always taken in all that concerns my domestic happiness; and it is a real support and comfort to Me in this heavy bereavement to realise how much affection My people felt for My dear Mother, and to feel that I can rely now as always on your sympathy and devotion."

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BOURNEMOUTH ORDER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I venture to make a few observations on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill. They are remarks that would not have been applicable on the Second Reading of the Bill, as to which, I think, no question can arise. It has been the practice of this House, for many years, to treat the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill as a matter of course, and I think that it has in every year up to the present year only come up from the House of Commons at the very close of the Session, and, indeed, very frequently—

997
it was the case last year—it has been passed on the last day of the Session by the suspension of the Standing Order.
Three years ago the House of Commons seemed to have awakened to the importance and the potentialities of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, and they appointed a Select Committee, which went into the whole subject of the position of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill. That Committee took the matter very seriously, and presented a Report. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to read two sentences from that Report. They said:—
"They wish, however, to record their view that it is most undesirable that these Acts, which are essentially of a temporary and emergency nature, should be allowed to Chill into the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and so become, without any deliberate intention of Parliament, part of the permanent system of law.
"Finally, although the point is not strictly speaking referred to them, your Committee would like to record their opinion that the present practice by which the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill is regularly introduced and passed through all stages under great pressure of time at the very end of a Session when serious discussion is, not practically possible, is open to grave objection. There would seem to be no reason why the Bill should not be introduced at a much earlier stage of the Session when proper Parliamentary time could be allotted to its discussion."
That was the view taken by that Committee, and this year, three years having elapsed, according to the suggestion of the first Committee, a Committee was appointed which went through the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and practically settled the Schedule which appears in the Bill this year.
I do not propose to place before your Lordships this year any amendment to the Bill, because not only has it been settled in the manner that I have mentioned by a second Committee this year, but I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that it was adequately discussed in another place before coming up here. What I want to suggest to the House is that this belongs to a class of legislation which is eminently appropriate for discussion and consideration in your Lordships' House and that, whether a Select Committee should be appointed to revise this Bill this year or not, at any rate I suggest that for the future the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill should be referred to
998
a Joint Committee of both Houses who would go through the Bill very much as the Committee in the House of Commons the other day went through it, and settle the Bill for the consideration of Parliament. If what I have said commends itself to your Lordships, I should be prepared to put down a Motion to the effect of the recommendations which I have ventured to make.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, the account given by the noble Lord of the proceedings of the Committee of 1922 and of the Committee of this year is, of course, perfectly accurate, and I do not differ in any respect front what he has said as to the importance of this Bill. This year, at all events, the Bill is brought here in sufficient time so that if your Lordships have proposals to make in Committee or elsewhere it can be done, and no complaint on that score, I think, can arise this year. With regard to the observations of the noble Lord as to the constitution of the Committee, after hearing what noble Lords sitting on other Benches have to say on the matter I will, of course, consult my colleagues, but as at present advised I feel myself in a good deal of sympathy with his suggestion. I think that this Bill, instead of being considered by a Committee of one House only, might well be considered by a Committee representing both Houses. I will convey the suggestion to my noble friend who leads this House and it shall receive full consideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE:

  PART I.
  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  How far continued.

  Amending Acts.

  (19)

  10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 58

  The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920.

  The whole Act.

  11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 60.

  LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in Part I of the Second Schedule, to leave out the reference to the Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920. The noble Lord said: I have put two Amendments on the Paper, but I propose to move the first only, the effect being to leave out the Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920. This Act provides, among other things, the following:
  "Every shop shall be closed for the serving of customers not later than 8 o'clock in the evening on every day other than Saturday and not later than 9 o'clock in the evening on Saturday."
  It goes on to define certain other places, which are not shops but which shall be deemed to be shops. It further says that the Order shall not prevent—
  "(1) the serving of a customer where it is proved that the customer was in the shop before the closing hour or that reasonable grounds existed for believing that the article supplied after the closing hour to a customer was required in a case of illness; or
  "(2) the sale after the closing hour of—
  "(a) meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises;
  "Provided that (1) in the case of railways, meals or refreshments may be sold after the closing hour on the railway premises to persons about to travel by rail..
  "(b) newly cooked provisions to be consumed off the premises."
  That is to say, you may buy something which has been newly cooked, but you cannot buy a ham or pressed beef which has been cooked a few days before. Also
  "(c) Any fruit specified in the Schedule to this Order or/and fresh fish or tripe;"
  There is a definition of soft fruit in the Schedule. It includes apricots, plums, greengages, cherries, black currants, raspberries, strawberries, loganberries, green figs and other fruits. You can buy them, but you cannot buy a pear or an apple.
  Further, the sale after the closing hour is permitted of
  "(d) intoxicating liquors to be consumed on or off the premises."
  I do not see Lord Balfour of Burleigh here, but that paragraph may appeal to him as a reason to vote with me, as I believe he does not approve of intoxicating liquor. Then it goes on to say:
  "For the purposes of the exemption relating to the sale of meals or refreshments, (a)
  1000
  tobacco supplied at a meal for immediate consumption shall be deemed to form part of the meal."
  So you may buy tobacco if you have something to eat, but you cannot buy it if you do not have anything to eat. I presume if you have a cup of coffee you cannot buy a cigarette, but if you consume fish or meat then you can buy a cigarette. Then,
  refreshments shall not be deemed to include sweets, chocolate, or other sugar confectionery or ice cream."
  Therefore you can buy a cigarette if you have a meal but not if you have sweets, chocolate or sugar confectionery.
  This Bill is the last remnant, I am happy to say, of D.O.R.A. and the history of it is as follows. It was introduced on July 30, 1920, in another Place and there it was stated that the measure was brought forward as a temporary measure to tide over the next eighteen months. That was nearly five and a-half years ago. The original Order was issued with a view to preventing the consumption of coal, and it was only coal. Further, the Order was only intended to extend over the winter of 1916–17. That is nine years ago. A Bill was introduced in order to prevent the consumption of coal and it was to have terminated in 1917, but it is still in force; and yet we believe this is a free country. The Home Secretary of that time said that it was not proposed to take any permanent stand with regard to the hours or anything else. He said they ought to have time to look round. He has had five and a-half years in which to look round, which, I should have thought, was plenty of time. Therefore, he said, they proposed to continue it for eighteen months. In 1921 I moved an Amendment in another place to leave out this Act and I withdrew my Amendment when the Home Secretary told me that the Act was a temporary measure and was still so regarded by the Government. In 1922 Mr. Macquisten moved to leave out this Act and he was again asked to withdraw his Amendment because, it was said, it may be that, as times improve, we may come to some permanent arrangement. Again, in 1923, its omission was moved and the same thing was said: Please withdraw the Amendment, because within a few months we are going to do something.
  I have looked to sec what has taken place in your Lordships' House and I find that in November, 1920, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said this:
  "The object of this Bill is to continue the existing general Early Closing Orders for shops until the end of 1921 so as to give time for the consideration of a permanent measure. The Bill before your Lordships has therefore been introduced with the object of continuing in force the existing provisions pending the introduction and consideration of a permanent measure which it is hoped will be brought in next year."
  That was in November, 1920, and I find that no one since that date has said a word on the subject in your Lordships' House. The Bill has been brought in formally, and it is evident that your Lordships expected Lord Onslow's statement on November 16, 1920, to be carried out.
  Supposing that my Amendment is carried and the Shops Act, 1920, is left out, it may be asked what would be the position of shops. We shall revert to the Act of 1912–13. That Act regulated the employment of shop assistants for one day in the week and provided that they must have a half-holiday. In Section 5 (1) of that Act it is provided that
  "An Order (in this Act referred to as 'a closing order') made by a local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State in manner provided by this Act, may fix the hours on the several days of the week at which, either throughout the area of the local authority or in any specified part thereof, all shops or shops of any certified class are to be closed for serving customers."
  I need not trouble your Lordships with the rest of the provisions, but there are provisions which enable a local authority, if it is satisfied that the majority of shops in its district requite to be closed early, to close them. Therefore we shall go back to what, after all, in some ways is not a bad thing—namely, local option. The shop-keepers in different parts of the country will be able to close their shops when it is suitable for them to do so, without being subjected to those restrictions and annoyances which will be in force if this last remnant of D.O.R.A. is continued.
  A day or two ago I received a rather interesting post card which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read. The writer says:
  "I read in to-day's Daily Mail a your intention to have the restrictions on the tobacco businesses removed, and in thanking
  1002
  you as an ordinary member of the public I should like to say that it would be indeed a feather in the cap of the House of Lords to prove to the Empire that it is not merely an ornament to the Constitution but a real business like House keenly alive to the interests and freedom of the people. The House of Lords, I am glad to see, has men not entirely devoted to society functions and also not afraid of losing votes at the next Election. Safeguard the hours of work of the employees, if you will, but do not unduly limit the hours of business. Wishing your Lordship every success in your work for the freedom of the people.…"
  It is for the freedom of the people that I appeal to your Lordships to accept the Amendment which I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 5, leave out lines 5 to 8.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
  LORD DESBOROUGH: It falls to my lot to oppose this Amendment and to explain, if possible in a very few words to your Lordships, the consequences which would follow if it were accepted. I do not propose to follow my noble friend in his researches into the vegetable kingdom, or to discuss how far your Lordships' House would prove ornamental to the Constitution if you agreed to his Amendment. But what would happen if that took place is this. The Shops (Farly Closing) Act, which has met with the greatest possible acceptance amongst people of all sorts and descriptions in this country, would absolutely come to an end. Whether your Lordships would increase your popularity in the country, however much you might add to your ornamental position by doing that, I shall leave your Lordships to judge. The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920, as has been truly said by my noble friend, came into operation under D.O.R.A.; but it does not necessarily follow that every Act which has been brought into existence to suit the convenience of the people under stress of war is necessarily bad in itself. I venture to think that the people of this country are fully persuaded that on the whole the Early Closing Act has been of the very greatest possible benefit. According, to the Shops (Early Closing) Act, which my noble friend wishes to abolish, shops have to be closed not later than 8 p.m. on every day other than Saturday and 9 p.m. on Saturday. That gives plenty of time for my noble friend to get his vegetables. At the same time it

  1003
  has proved to be acceptable to shopkeepers and assistants alike, and has been continued in force year by year up to the present time.
  The arguments in favour of continuing the Shops (Early Closing) Act are that it has the support of all those bodies which are chiefly interested in the matter—namely, the Early Closing Association, the National Chamber of Trade, the National Union of Shop Assistants, and the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers: and, although I have not been favoured with private post cards, I have received a great many resolutions passed by the National Chamber of Trade and other bodies who are interested in the question. If this law were not continued for another year, we should revert, as my noble friend has justly said, to the Act of 1912. Under that Act no early closing was laid down by law; but there was a provision for one half-holiday in the week. On all the other week days shops would be allowed to remain open to any hour they liked.
  LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No.
  LORD DESBOROUGH: Yes—unless local closing orders were made for particular trades or classes of shops. But that could not very easily be done. The machinery was very complicated. You had to get a two-thirds majority in the locality, and somebody had to make it their business to do that. Then you had to get each different locality to act. That was a very cumbrous, and was found to be a very inconvenient, system. It is infinitely better and fairer for everybody concerned in the different trades that there should be one law for closing throughout the country, and unless certain trades can prove exceptional circumstances they should not have exceptional facilities given them.
  In all these general laws, of course, there may be instances of individual hardship. Experience has shown that not only has early closing proved to be of the greatest possible benefit to traders and their assistants, but the public have already acquired a habit of shopping rather earlier and buying their cigarettes and vegetables before eight o'clock on weekdays and nine o'clock on Saturdays. If the Act of 1920 were allowed to lapse the great bulk of shopkeepers and assistants
  1004
  would regard it as a calamity, and I do not think such a result is desired by the people in general. There is opposition from certain quarters—the retail tobacco trade is one of them—but I should like to draw the attention of the House to this fact, that the allegation that small shopkeepers generally are in favour of longer hours was strenuously denied by the small shopkeepers who attended the deputation from the Early Closing Association to Mr. Locker-Lampson in January last. A deputation was also received last February from the National Chamber of Trade, which represents a large number of small shopkeepers. There was also a deputation at the Home Office, and on that occasion the Home Secretary expressed his willingness to consider objections which might be raised by the small traders, and to institute special legislation, but no representations were received from any organised body. On the contrary, strong representations were made that the trade, as a whole, small and large, approved of the Early Closing Act.
  I do not know that it is necessary for me to go into the various points that have been raised, but I think I am justified in saying this. I agree with my noble friend—and I hope he will lend his valuable assistance when the time comes—that it is necessary to review the whole question, to appoint a Committee, and see whether the various objections that have been raised (none of them very strong) could be met. I quite agree that the time is ripe for legislation, but I venture to point out to your Lordships that it would be a serious calamity to the traders of this country, shopkeepers and everyone else, if the Early Closing Act were not renewed for this year.
  LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, has said. I do not desire to go into the merits of the case, but surely it would be the worst possible precedent to deal with a matter of this kind, which raises controversy and difference of opinion, on the Expiring Laws Bill, upon which it is quite impossible to discuss a matter of this kind. We, on this side of the House, are entirely in favour of the early closing movement. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Banbury, takes a different view. I will say only

  1005
  one further word, and it is this. I think that this discussion shows the value of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, and that matters of this kind, if they are to be discussed at all, should be discussed in a Joint Committee, in a Committee of your Lordships' House and the other House, in order to determine whether an Act of this kind should be continued or not. I think it is quite impossible to discuss this matter on the floor of this House. It is a flatter which has to be discussed on Second Reading, Committee stage and Report stage, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, will not succeed in getting passed the Amendment that he has brought forward. I have been asking those of more experience than myself whether they knew of any precedent for a Motion of this kind on the Expiring Laws Bill, and I cannot find that any of them know of any precedent in this House. I sincerely
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the
hope that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, will be upheld.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should like to divide on this matter, because I think, unless some strong action is taken, we shall go on from year to year without any legislation whatever. We have been told for the last five years that all that was necessary was to continue the Act for one year, and that then the Government would bring in legislation. They have not done so. Supposing we go back to 1912–13, we were not so badly off then, and what I venture to say we want are not regulations as to how little we can work, but regulations to enable everyone in this country to work as long and as hard as they possibly can.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Schedule?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Peel, V.

Kylsant, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Merrivale, L.

Arnold, L.

Morris, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Olivier, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Askwith, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Clarendon, E.

Biddulph, L.

Parmoor, L.

Eldon, E.

Buckmaster, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Kimberley, E.

Charnwood, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Saye and Sele, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Shandon, L.

Russell, E.

Somers, L.

Spencer, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Southwark, L.

Desborough, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Digby, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Dynevor, L.

Stanmore, L.

Devonport, V.

FitzWalter, L.

Strachie, L.

Haldane, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Falkland, V.

Lawrence, L.

Raglan, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller]

Muskerry, L.

Wyfold, L.

Newton, L.

object of this Bill, which has been agreed to by both sides of the mining industry, is to extend the operation of what is known as the "levy" for a further period of five years; that is to say, until December 31, 1930, and to add to the Allocating Committee—that is the committee which distributes this fund—a second member representing the miners and a second member representing the owners. Your Lordships will remember that this fund was established by Sec-

1007
tion 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, by means of a levy upon all colliery owners of one penny per ton on output, and the section provides that the fund is to be applied for such purposes connected with the social well being, recreation, and conditions of living of workers in or about coal mines and with mining education and research as the Board of Trade, after consultation with any Government Department concerned, may approve. This Allocating Committee at present consists of five persons, with the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, as the Chairman. Already there is one representative of the Mining Association and one representative of the Miners' Federation on the Committee, and it is proposed for convenience to add another member to represent the Association and another to represent the Federation. The Bill passed through another place without any amendment, and as it has been agreed to by both sides of the industry, probably your Lordships will not be disposed to offer any opposition to it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill is not only a very proper measure but a very useful one as well. The Committee has discharged its functions as well as it could, and has administered very considerable and increasing sums derived from the levy. The expenditure has been on all kinds of useful purposes and is designed to smooth over certain difficulties which have arisen between the miners and those who employ them. The fund has been put to many useful purposes, and may be put to more useful purposes still, especially as it is an increasing fund and the scope of its activity is also increasing. I cannot think that any member of this House is likely to offer any real opposition to this measure which is desired, as far as I know, by everyone.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MONEYLENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a third time, but I should like to make a few brief observations before the Question is put. When I brought in this measure I was impressed by the great urgency of the matter. I had had to investigate many cases that were brought before me of hardship and indeed of poverty, sometimes of criminality and blackmail, which were caused by the machinations of those moneylenders. Since then I have been much more educated upon the subject by an immense correspondence, giving me innumerable instances of the devious ways in which the organisations of moneylenders and others are knit together in order to get into their nets people whose miseries they afterwards exploit to their detriment and also the detriment of their relations. You can hardly take up a newspaper to-day in which you do not see cases in which moneylenders are concerned which must touch the heart of anybody who has any human concern about his fellow creatures. What is worse is when you read the observations of the Judges, almost from day to day, as to the utter futility of the resent state of the law under the Moneylenders Acts and their utter powerlessness to do anything to help in the matter.
Of course, the present Bill has been open to criticism and I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount opposite said upon the Second Reading, that it is almost impossible to stop a great many of the hardships and of the intrigues which arise in the carrying out of a business of this kind. Assuming, however, for it is the assumption on which one must attempt to legislate, that the business of a moneylender is a necessity in this country—it is not my own view at all, but it is the general view of people at large—a great deal may be done to alleviate these evils by this Bill. Every day one gets more and more evidence of the audacity of these moneylenders. This Bill tries to put an end to a most offensive proceeding, the constant and persistent sending of moneylenders' circulars, almost every one of which is founded upon the suppression of truth or

1009
a false statement as to facts. The growth of this practice is so enormous that evidently it must pay in some way or other.
The Public Prosecutor sent me the other day particulars of a case which came before him, in which one moneylender had within six months issued 190,000 circulars, each one of them done up in an envelope requiring a three-halfpenny stamp, printed on good paper and having all the appearance of a respectable document in order that people might open it. Your Lordships can easily draw your own conclusions, if one moneylender can afford to do that, as to the way in which people are induced by these circulars to go to the offices of these people. If we saw these 190,000 circulars—God forbid that we should have to look through them all—we should find that each one of them was founded on a false suggestion. A common one—and I have had to look through some thousands of circulars—is: "Try our short loan system. We give you pounds and you pay back in guineas." One finds out afterwards that this most attractive system means that you get £100 for a month if you pay £105 at the end of month. There are many other devices of that kind. There has recently been brought to my notice another class of ease. Some moneylenders do not adopt the system of putting their circulars in envelopes requiring a three-halfpenny stamp, but put them into letter boxes all through London. These circulars are plainly intended for servants and offer loans of anything up to £5, generally at a shilling a week per £, or something like that. Could anything be worse than that servants should take up such documents as this and should be led into the hands of these people while they are carrying out the duties which are entrusted to them?
In addition to that, touting is a matter which is going on to an enormous extent. I venture to say that there is not a single port in the Kingdom where young naval officers come in, or a single town where there are barracks, where there are not these moneylenders' touts. I was told the other day by a very high official in the Admiralty that the number of young officers who, coming on shore after long service at sea, unfortunately get into the hands of these moneylenders, is a most disastrous thing for the Service. To show
1010
you the way in which the tout is encouraged may I quote from a circular, which I have here. It was sent by a moneylender in London to a very large number of people. In this he says:
"We have in our possession a considerable number of silver wrist watches sold throughout the War for £3 10 s. These were made dust-proof and water-tight; the fifteen jewel movement is splendid, the whole being a very desirable watch. We have decided to give one of these watches until they are all disposed of to each customer who introduces from this date either personally or by letter a client to us to whom we lend £5 or upwards."
Your Lordships can easily calculate, if they give a £3 10 s. watch for an introduction to a man who borrows £5, how much profit is made out of the poor borrower.
The Bill, of which I am now moving the Third Reading, has very drastic provisions as regards both circulars and touts. Probably the most valuable provisions, however, are those which regulate the rate of interest. That is where the existing legislation has broken down. The existing legislation allows a Judge to interfere if the transaction is unconscionable, without giving any indication whatever as to what is "unconscionable" in the case of a man who has no security coming to ask for a loan from a moneylender. The Bill makes a provision that anything over four per cent. per month—that is forty-eight per cent. per annum—is to be held to be unconscionable, and therefore the Judges will have something to go upon to show how far they ought or ought not to interfere in administering the Act which is at present in force and which, of course, is not interfered with by this Bill. That, of course, is a very valuable provision.
There is also a provision as regards poor persons. That is, that in the case of a loan of £3 or under no principal or interest can be recovered at law. I have had hundreds of letters from the very poorest classes in this country, and the-way they are treated by moneylenders is a great scandal. Probably you do not know that the interest they are charged comes very often to 3s. 8d. for £1 for, say, ten days. That is not an unusual thing. These people have written to me from places throughout England saying that the moment they get into debt with any of these people, the law is not put into force against them but the money-

1011
lenders employ regular bullies who go and terrorise the debtors when they are at work and are likely to be exposed to their foreman or employer. The object is to frighten them into procuring somebody to find the money for them. I have a letter from a school teacher, or from somebody on her behalf, in which it is stated that the moneylender used to go up to the school in which she was teaching and, in the presence of the pupils, demand the money and use abusive language towards her because the poor girl was unable to pay. That is not a matter which you can cure by a Moneylending Bill, and I only refer to it because it is well that the poor should know that there is a provision in the Bill with regard to loans of not more than £3 and the interest thereon not being recoverable. I would certainly advise these people whom attempts are made to terrorise not to be frightened, but to go straight to the police and tell the police of the action of these moneylenders and the methods by which they are trying to recover their money.
Another class of matters mentioned in the Bill, and to which I attach great value, is that comprising the limitations which the Bill provides for allowing bankruptcy summonses to be served. There is most valuable evidence taken by the Committee—evidence given by Mr. Williams, one of the Official Receivers—which goes to show the length to which a class of professional moneylenders goes with a view to what almost amounts to levying blackmail. I am only going to read one or two answers of his which will show your Lordships how this matter is carried on. This gentleman was asked with reference to proceedings in bankruptcy:
"Do you think it is used by the moneylenders illegitimately in the way of bringing pressure to bear such as other people do not bring to bear upon debtors?"
The answer was:
"That is the conclusion I have come to; that is my own view. In my opinion, the moneylender does not present his petition with a view of bringing about a rateable distribution of the assets amongst all his creditors, which really should be the object of a petitioner, but rather with a view of exerting pressure which will bring the money from somewhere."
He then goes into detail as to the number of petitions which are presented,
1012
and he says that, roughly speaking, from thirty to thirty-five per cent. of the receiving orders are made on the petition of registered moneylenders.
He continues:—
"Of course, one sees constantly cases coming in on a receiving order, where perhaps there are a dozen petitions filed against the same debtor, most of those petitions being petitions by other moneylenders. I had a case only the other day where there were fourteen petitions against the debtor, and twelve of them were petitions by moneylenders. Of course, many of them had been paid off, but ultimately what does happen is that the debtor comes in with, in my view, increased liabilities, and his assets have been very considerably diminished in trying to pay off the instalments to the moneylenders. In that way I believe that the ordinary creditor suffers."
There is one other answer of this gentleman's which I should like to read to the House, and it is this—
"I think I ought to say that in my experience I cannot recall a single case where the borrowing of money by a trader from a moneylender was likely to result in any useful purpose at all. It only serves to postpone the actual date of the failure. I cannot recollect a single case where it could have served any useful purpose."
The provisions in this Bill are particularly valuable as regards naval and military officers, and other persons in the employment of the Crown. A number of Acts have been passed from time to time by the Legislature, for the purpose of preventing the pay or pension of these people from being interfered with or taken in execution on judgment. The reason, of course, is that the pay and right to pension are given to them with a view to their carrying out the services of the Crown; but these people are not protected from bankruptcy, and the evils which would have resulted from a policy of leaving them subject to execution for debt of course follow if, the moment they get into the clutches of moneylenders, they can be served with bankruptcy notices, and in that way, of course, probably lose their employment. Just imagine the case of a young officer—I know of one—who, for three years, was going about from one moneylender to another, attempting to pay off one through another, paying interest at enormous rates, and all that time trying honestly to carry out his work as, say, the commander of a submarine. Such a man does not know at what moment he

1013
may be served with a bankruptcy notice, and in that way driven out of the career to which he has devoted his life. It is impossible for him or for a civil servant, or anybody else, if he has such a matter hanging over him, efficiently to discharge his duties towards the country, which is in that case his employer.
There is one other matter to which I might refer, although I do not want to weary the House by going into details. Hitherto, in the vast majority of cases, it was utterly impossible for a man who had dealt with moneylenders to defend himself. Proceedings were taken in the High Court. First, a Writ was issued, and then a summary motion. To defend himself in those proceedings the man, who had not got a shilling and who had been borrowing money at enormous rates of interest, was invited to come in, employ solicitor and counsel, and expend a considerable sum of money, even before he got leave to appeal at all—what we call a summary motion. That, to my mind, was a denial of justice, and I put into the original Bill that I introduced in your Lordships' House a provision that all proceedings should be taken in the County Courts. I notice that the Select Committee of the two Houses to which the Bill was referred have altered that, and have left it to a Secretary of State to provide as to the particular Court in which the proceedings shall be taken. I do not take that as being hostile to my provision at all. In certain cases, if you wish to give an opportunity of defence at all, it may be proper to have the matter decided before a summary tribunal like the petty sessions in very small cases. That may be necessary if you are to give an opportunity to very poor people, to have their case heard at all. But I do hope that, if the Bill becomes law, there will be no hesitation whatever on the part of the Government in making such arrangements as will in the best possible way delimit the powers of the Courts as regards these particular cases, and not allow such a denial of justice as certainly has resulted, and must result, when people in such a predicament as are these borrowers are driven into the High Court of Justice to defend themselves at enormous expense.
I believe the Bill to be an honest effort to do something to mitigate what is a great public scandal. Whether it will
1014
become law or not I do not know, but I make a most sincere appeal to the Government, who, I know, are occupied with great and important matters which primarily call for their attention, to give some consideration to a question of this kind, for they will find the more they sift the matter the more they will be convinced of the great amount of poverty created among the poor by this traffic in money. I read the other day a report of an independent inquiry made in America, and I was astounded to find how much of the poverty in America was attributed by that Committee to people being led into improper and extravagant habits, which they could not possibly afford, by the advance of money to them, with the ensuing utter misery which must result in such circumstance. I commend this Bill to your Lordships' attention, and I hope that, if it does pass your Lordships' House, His Majesty's Government may afterwards give it fall consideration with a view to its being passed in another place, and to its becoming the law of the land.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I, too, hope that this Bill will receive favourable consideration. As the noble and learned Lord has remarked, I pointed out on the Second Reading certain inadequacies in the scope of the measure. I had in mind the old usury laws which were on our Statute Book for a long time, and which prohibited loans at a high rate of interest. Those Acts proved to be a dead letter, because the moneylender, when approached, said: "No, I cannot lend money, because I cannot get any interest, but I will do this. I will purchase from you an annuity. I will pay you a sum down, and you will pay me an annuity"—which was, of course, a very large amount proportionate to the advance—"and that will not be a loan transaction at all, but the creation of an annuity." So far as I can see, this Bill leaves that kind of transaction where it was, and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord thought it very difficult to strike at a thing of that kind. I do not like to prophesy, but I think it likely that the moneylenders will not go under, but will proceed to buy annuities wholesale, and that in some shape or form they will get what they

1015
want. They may be able to send out circulars saying, "We will buy annuities; who will come into our market?"
Therefore, while I am not satisfied that this Bill will create a complete revolution in the system which now obtains, I think the Bill is a very valuable one. It puts an end to the system of circulars, at any rate, as regards loans; it severely restricts the rate of interest on loans, and it prevents a number of things being done, which are done at the present time, in the way of touting and canvassing for loans. On the whole, I think the Bill is a valuable gesture against what is a very bad system, and therefore I hope that the Government, even though they may think that it does not go the whole way, will consider that it goes far enough to be a valuable alleviation of a most monstrous system which flourishes to-day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount does not appear to think that this Bill is going to achieve quite as much as its promoters expect and hope, and, if he has nothing better to say for it than that it is a valuable gesture in the first place, and, in the second, that it will stop the tiresome nuisance of circulars, it will do what other Bills passed during the last 3,000 years have done—they have been gestures, they have proved ineffective and the evils and scandals of moneylending have continued. Because moneylending meets a demand—right or wrong, a demand. We have had some experience in this country, not indeed such a long experience as other countries, but we have had 600 years' experience in this country of anti-moneylending agitation and edict. These agitations recur at fairly regular intervals. The last campaign in which I was concerned was in the House of Commons 20 or 25 years ago. It was a really first-class stunt. I remember it well, and Lord Carson does, too. I well remember a wretched moneylender being dragged to the bar, and being rebuked by Mr. Speaker Gully because he had failed to answer some question upstairs about his method of book-keeping.
Well, the time comes round when laws passed by Parliament prove quite ineffective to prevent the abuse of a public demand. The noble and learned Viscount. Lord Haldane, has already referred to one out of the very many methods by
1016
which this demand will be met in spite of this Bill. Lord Carson says that this moneylending is not a necessity. Why should it go on if it is not a necessity Moneylenders do not send out 190,000 advertisements, printed on fine paper, stamped at the cost of a closed envelope, just for fun, just to let one know that someone called Hector McTavish lends money. No, they do it because they know there is a public demand for these circulars. They know very well that they are going to charge high rates of interest because in many cases they are lending money to people who have no security. If I wish to borrow money and I go to Drummond's Bank, they know precisely what security I can offer and they charge me a reasonable interest accordingly. On the other hand, if I want to borrow £2, £3 or £5 and I go to Mr. Drummond and ask him to lend me £3 or £5 he will say: "What is your security? Who are you? I have never seen you before. I do not know you. What guarantee have I that you will repay the money?" and I say: "You do not know me and I cannot give you any guarantee that I will pay." Then Mr. Drummond will say to me: "Very well, I am afraid I cannot deal with you. You must go to somebody who deals with persons who can offer no security and you will have to pay accordingly."
Do not let us be over-worried by the nuisance of the circulars. I get them and I have no doubt that every other member of this House and every official of this House is in the same boat. But I would, at least, say this for the moneylenders' circulars, that they are not couched in such familiar or friendly terms as those of others who frequently implore me to buy their cigars or wines, and if my noble friend is out to stop this nuisance I wish he would stop one which, to myself at any rate, is much the greater of the two. But these circulars meet a demand. The demand may be foolish. The way the demand is fulfilled may be irregular and often is fraudulent. But if the moneylender is fraudulent to his client, make no mistake, the client as often as not, and often deliberately, is fraudulent towards the moneylender, and rates go up accordingly. Rates must go up when you are dealing with customers of this kind, and although the rates of interest are what

1017
we call exorbitant and, of course, in some cases are positively tyrannous, there are tens of thousands of cases where a legitimate need is met by this fraternity, and where a reasonable rate of interest is charged.
It is no good opposing this Bill. The country demands something of this kind. Every generation, or every second generation, this demand becomes insistent and anti-usury laws have to be passed. For a time there is quietude, and then, of course, the trouble begins again in some other form and fresh repressive legislation is necessary. I would, however, make one suggestion. Instead of solely making it illegal as far as Parliament dare, and can to lend money, why not try to make it illegal to borrow money? In that case you would have two criminals to attack instead of one, and to that extent you could hope that you might be able to halve the crime.
The object of my remarks is not to oppose this Bill, because I know that, public opinion is infected by these indignations and enthusiasms every twenty, thirty, or fifty years, and we are now in the midst of one of them. What I want to say, however, is that in my opinion the scandal of moneylending is very largely caused by trouble into which people get by betting, chiefly on horse-races. I should think that sixty per cent., possibly seventy per cent., of the people who have to suffer from unconscionable rates of interest get into trouble by betting upon races in places they have never visited and upon horses they have never seen. Why is no effort made to remove what is one of the fundamental causes of this great moneylending scandal? We have not the courage to do so. It has been reduced to a fine art by the betting Press. They come down my street every morning. They begin between 9.30 and 9.40 regularly and they go on until late at night. The earlier part of the day is devoted to assisting people to understand what is going to occur during the latter part of the day, and the latter part of the day is devoted to telling you whether you have won or lost your bets in the afternoon and how you had better bet tomorrow. The organisation is one of the most perfect things in the world, and there is not a little street or slum in London where anybody who wants to bet
1018
under the stimulus of the betting Press, cannot do so with the greatest case. I once saw what I think was a perfect triumph of scientific organisation. Somebody came shouting the betting news down my own street about ten o'clock in the morning. A man came down a ladder front the roof where he was working; a girl came up from the basement to the street and met a gentleman in a frock coat who came from the front door, and three halfpenny papers—betting papers and nothing else—were bought for one house. Until Parliament has the courage to check the betting scandal, it is idle for Parliament to say that it can expect to stop the money lending scandal.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, everybody must sympathise with the objects of this Bill, and everybody must be conscious, as well as the noble and learned Lord who is promoting it, that there are very hard cases. But the question is whether this Bill will not make the hard cases harder and more numerous. I cannot help asking your Lordships to consider whether that will not be the case. There are useful provisions in this Bill; but there are provisions in it which, in my humble opinion, will make things worse for the honest man who has no security except his industry, his occupation and his honesty. It will make it harder for him to borrow and more likely that he will be dragged down by his borrowing.
Money borrowing—do not let us speak of money-lending—is a necessity as the world is constituted. It has been a necessity ever since there has been any form of civilisation. There are times when people who have no capital, or no handy capital, but who have brains and courage and industry require a lump sum of money in advance. If they have no security to offer but their industry and their honesty, the question will arise as to what terms the moneylender will ask, and the moneylender will have to say substantially to the borrower: "If I knew that you were an honest man, a hard-working man and a frugal man, I should be able to lend you this money at a very little higher rate than I should lend it to somebody who could offer me ample security; but because there are numbers of people who are not honest and will go to every shift they can to avoid paying me, and

1019
because there are a still greater number of people who are shiftless and will be idle and will not work, and will be extravagant and will not be able to pay me, therefore I must charge you a rate which will enable me to meet the losses which I have upon other people."
After all, the interest charged by a moneylender is made up of two factors. It is partly the rate for the accommodation, but it is much more the insurance. An analogy will make this very clear to your Lordships' House. In shipping matters there is what is called the borrowing of money on "bottomry." The electric telegraph and submarine cables have almost abolished it, but in olden times it was one of the most common forms of borrowing. A shipmaster, driven by contrary winds or accidents into a port where he had no connections, having to raise money for repairs of the ship and other expenses, found himself without anybody to whom he could appeal. He had no connections. His owner was not known, and it would be impossible to refer to his owner in time. What did he do? He gave as security the ship. The law said he could pledge his owner's ship. But the ship might sink before it got home, the ship might get into collision and have a charge made upon it for that collision, and the maritime lien might take precedence of the bottomry. The ship might be the subject of salvage. The risk, therefore, was very great that the lender would not be repaid. The consequence was that the rate of interest on loans on bottomry was quite different from the rate of interest on ordinary loans. Thirty or 40 per cent. was, for them, not at all uncommon. Just in the same way the moneylender requires to insure his loan, and the worse you make it for the moneylender, the more you treat him as an enemy of the human race, the more you treat him as an outcast and pariah, the more he will be driven to charge everybody a high rate of interest, and the more the honest, frugal man will have to pay for the extravagance of the shiftless and dishonest borrower.
When the Act of 1900, which I think was promoted by Lord James of Hereford, came before this House, very much the same sort of thing was said as has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. When that Act was passed I was a Judge of the King's Bench Division, and we had to consider
1020
what would be harsh and unconscionable discussed the matter with some of the wisest of my wise brethren, and we all felt the necessity of so conducting ourselves as not to put up the price against the honest man. I endeavoured myself, whenever I had to deal with these cases, to look at the matter from that point of view. We must give the moneylender reasonable security, a reasonable rate of insurance, as well as a reasonable reward. There are clauses in this measure which as I have said, are useful. The idea of restricting the rate of interest, the idea of restricting advertisements seems to me, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, quite futile and dangerous Touting is such a nuisance, and touting also is such a temptation that I feel anxious to abolish it, but how a man is to start a business as a moneylender—and, after all, it is a useful and legitimate business—if he is not to make known that he is a moneylender, and not to make known on what terms he lends money (which I suppose is what advertisement means) I do not know.
The noble and learned Lord has been eloquent upon the poor person. I remember a very interesting account, in one of those hooks relating to the East End of London, of the "square dolly woman," a woman pawnbroker, who dealt in such small sums of money that no laws could possibly apply to her. She was known as a "square dolly woman" because she always treated her borrowers honestly. Under this Bill there is no room for the "square dolly woman." Nobody is to recover a debt of £3, and therefore nobody will lend £3. The poor man who wants £2 or £3 will be told: "Oh, Lord Carson has prevented that; I cannot lend it to you because I shall not have barely my principal." When this measure was in my mind, during the stages through which it has passed, I took to reading Bentham on Usury, and I find this passage which, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote—
"The proposition I have been accustomed to lay down to myself on this subject is the following one—namely, that no man of ripe years and of sound mind, acting freely, and with his eyes open, ought to be hindered, with a view to his advantage, from making such bargain, in the way of obtaining money, as he thinks fit."
Your Lordships will see how he goes on. I venture to say that he puts the horse

1021
before the cart, and not the cart before the horse. How is a man to get the money? Bentham says—
"nor (what is a necessary consequence), anybody hindered from supplying him, upon any terms he thinks proper to accede to."
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I cannot take quite the same view of this Bill as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, for I listened day after day to evidence as to the amount of harm done by pestering people, not people who really needed money at the time, but pestering people to borrow money which they could have done without, and particularly requesting people to borrow very small sums, and then being very hard upon the people who had borrowed. I could not help somewhat regretting, as I listened to my noble and learned friend opposite, that he did not appear for Shylock in the well known case. I feel certain that Portia would have had a much more difficult task in persuading the Doge of Venice if my noble and learned friend had been able to speak with that enthusiasm in Shylock's behalf with which he spoke for all the poor oppressed persons who will be prevented from getting a living if they are not allowed to worry everybody day after day with circulars. Of course, it would have spoilt the best play in the world, but what would such a price as that have mattered if justice had been done?
Before I leave that part of the subject, I should like to say that I was surprised to hear Bentham quoted, and to find that the ideal is to leave the freeborn, grown-up Englishman alone to make any contract that he pleases. How many years have gone by since that principle was abandoned? I have not the knowledge of the Statute or ally other law which my noble and learned friend possesses. He could tell us in a sentence or two of any number of Statutes which interfere with a man making a contract that he wishes to make. There are hundreds of them. They have been passed for the benefit of the working man, and of all sorts of people, grown-up people, thoroughly able to take care of themselves in many ways. Parliaments have determined that these people are not fit to make those contracts—daily contracts—which they would wish to make, Parliaments have protected them, and if they masts such contracts they are set aside.
1022
My noble and learned friend said that in dealing with the existing Act it was difficult to say what is harsh and unconscionable, and that when he first had to deal with it he called together a few of the more intelligent of His Majesty's Judges to see if they could arrive at some sort of agreement upon the matter, I am sorry to say that I was not of the assembly. But for all that I had to try some of the cases. They are in the law books, and anybody can read them. We all recognised that you could not lay down any hard and fast rule, and if these cases are looked up it will be found that we were by no means illiberal to moneylenders. No one says that in no circumstances shall interest be above such and such per cent. You cannot. You must take into consideration the circumstances of the borrower and what security he can offer. There was a Judge who used very picturesque language in this respect—Baron Bramwell. A case is recorded in which he asked this question of counsel: "On what terms would you lend a mutton chop to a starving dog? "You cannot lay down any hard mid fast rule. We have tried to remove what we all believe to be a very great grievance and to remedy the very great wrongs which are being done to people in necessitous circumstances. People who go to borrow money are not free agents. They are not all in a position to go to Mr. Drummond, as in the hypothetical case put before your Lordships by the noble Earl. It never occurs to them to go to Mr. Drummond. They are people who would not borrow at all if they were not pestered into borrowing.
The noble Earl said that a greet deal of the borrowing is in order to pay bets. That is perfectly true, but if it were more difficult to borrow money it would, therefore, be much more difficult to bet, and in this way this Bill does strike at the great evil of betting, particularly at the evil of street betting, which appears to flourish in Mayfair. I was surprised to hear the noble Earl say that there is demand for this money; why should we interfere with the demand? Again, it is exactly similar to the case already cited—liberty of contract. We have interfered with that. There is a demand for drink. Do you not interfere with that? Did the noble Earl when he was in the House of Com-

1023
mons and the licensing question was being discussed, get up and say, "There is a demand for drink"?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What happened was this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, denied that there was a necessity for this, and I said that there was a demand which seemed to connote a necessity. And I say the same about drink.
LORD DARLING: It comes to this: You may drink up to a certain point, but beyond that you may not drink. The law says you may not drink more than is good for you. And that is what this Bill says: You shall not enter into contracts which are manifestly bad for you, whether they are contracts to buy drink or to borrow money. We have had a great deal of evidence to show that in the workshops there are many people, some of them foremen, who are licensed moneylenders, and, being licensed moneylenders, they plague the people in the shops to borrow money and in that way get them into their hands. They are most cruel and most oppressive, and it is for that reason that we provide—and I say this boldly—one of the best things in the Bill, that where the sum of money is very small there should be no recourse to the Courts at all in order to get it back. There was probably no real necessity to borrow it. It was borrowed probably for purposes of betting or of drinking. Therefore, if the people like to pay it back well and good, but leave it as a debt of honour and do not trouble the Courts with it. I think the question of the circulars has been a little misunderstood. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, asks: How is a moneylender to begin to conduct his business if he cannot send out circulars?
LORD PHILLIMORE: I did not say that. On the contrary, I said that repression of touting by circulars was quite legitimate. I was speaking of advertisements which are separately dealt with in the Bill.
LORD DARLING: I think the noble and learned Lord will find that there is no difficulty for a moneylender to start his business. He may send out business cards. There is a provision as to that, and as to putting advertisements in the
1024
newspaper. He can send out his cards; but we desire to limit his expenses and prevent him throwing away money, as he often does. For my part, and I think I can speak for my friends, what actuated as was not a feeling that these circulars were a nuisance. It is not because we have to open a dozen or more of these circulars and then throw them into the wastepaper basket. It is not that. It is because people who would not borrow money and get into difficulties, but would set to work and make money in other ways, have this temptation put in their way and get into the hands of moneylenders. That is the real reason why circulars were prohibited. It is only extending a little further the excellent doctrine that if you can avoid it you should not put temptation in the way of people. It has been argued, and quite properly, that you should not, in low class neighbourhoods, where people are poor, hang up clothes at the door with no one to look after them; or put up open stalls at which people might go and pick up goods. If there are temptations which many people cannot resist, I see no infringement of the liberty of the subject in saying that you shall not put these temptations in their way.
The noble Earl asked: Why not prohibit borrowing? I suppose that was a reductio ad absurdum. It would be useless to attempt to prohibit borrowing. You cannot prohibit a man who is poor from asking for a loan. What could you do to him if he is an absolute pauper and asks for a loan, and takes no notice of your law? Nothing. If a man is carrying on a business in a way which has received the condemnation of centuries I hold that we are justified, however hopeless our efforts may be, in making one more effort to control what those on the Committee believed, with the noble Lord, Lord Carson, to be a grave evil inflicted upon people who deserve that the State should try to secure them better treatment.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [Licences to be taken out by moneylenders] and Clause 2 [Certificate required for moneylender's excise licence]:
LORD DESBOROUGH: I beg to move pro forma, in accordance with the rules

1025
of the House, that Causes 1 and 2, which are financial clauses, be omitted from the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clauses 1 and 2.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Form of loan document]:
Amendment, moved—
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Obligation of moneylender to supply information as to state of loan]:
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Proceedings in bankruptcy for moneylenders' loan not to be taken except after application to court having jurisdiction.
10.—(1) No proceedings in bankruptcy shall be commenced by a moneylender in respect of money lent by him after the passing of this Act unless the said moneylender has first applied to the court having jurisdiction for an order for payment of the debt due by such instalments as the court shall think fit, and default has been made by the person against whom such order has been made in the payment of any instalment fixed by the order of the court.
(2) Where a debt due to a moneylender in respect of a loan made by him after the passing of this Act includes interest or any pecuniary consideration in lieu of interest, that interest or consideration shall, for the purposes of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, relating to the presentation of a bankruptcy petition, voting at meetings, compositions and schemes of arrangement and dividend, be calculated at a rate not exceeding fire per cent. per annum, but nothing in the foregoing provision shall prejudice the right of the creditor to receive out of the estate, after all the debts proved in the estate have been paid in full, any higher rate of interest to which he may be entitled.
(3) No proof of a debt due to a moneylender in respect of a loan made by him shall be admitted for any of the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, unless the affidavit verifying the debt is accompanied by a statement showing in detail—
(b) the amount of the principal remaining due to the moneylender together with the interest thereon calculated in accordance with the
1026
provisions of the last preceding subsection of this section.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement")
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (3) the words "principal remaining due to the moneylender together with the interest thereon," and insert "balance remaining unpaid all interest in respect of the loan being." The noble, Lord said: The object of the Amendment is that the interest on the sum lent should be brought into consideration and not only the interest on the capital.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out from the second ("the") to ("calculated") in line 3 and insert ("balance remaining unpaid, all interest in respect of the loan being").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Restriction on loans to public officers.
11. No proceedings in bankruptcy or under the Debtors Act, 1869, shall be commenced or prosecuted in respect of money lent by a moneylender against any public officer holding a public office or employment, if the pay, salary or emolument of such person is forbidden by law to be assigned or to be taken in execution of any debt due by such person.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to add to the clause: "For the purposes of this section any person in his Majesty's naval, military or air forces shall, whether on full pay or half pay, be deemed to be a public officer holding a public office or employment." The noble Lord said: In pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARSON: I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Carson.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an important Bill and I should have to ask your Lordships' attention to it in some detail were it not that in substance the same Bill has passed your Lordships' House in two previous Sessions. I myself introduced a Bill of this character in the year 1923. The Bill then passed this House and only failed to pass into law because of the General Election that occurred in the autumn of that year. In the following year, 1924, a similar Bill was introduced by my noble and learned friend who now leads the Opposition, with the addition of some valuable clauses dealing with the probation of offenders. That also passed this House, but again failed to become law owing to the occurrence of another General Election. The Bill is now introduced substantially in the same form by ourselves this year and has passed the House of Commons. It has a few new clauses, which are mainly formal, and a few clauses have been omitted from it or struck out in another place.
Among the clauses so struck out is a clause, which your Lordships may remember, which sought to abolish Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions. For myself I regret the omission of that clause. I think that calling Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions means a waste of money and a waste of a good deal of time by busy men. The cases have already been fully examined by magistrates and the examination, generally perfunctory, given to bills by the Grand Jury is of very little use. Still, it was decided to delete the clause and I will not ask your Lordships to reinstate it. I may ask your Lordships to deal with one aspect of the subject in Committee. I understand that it happens much oftener than. I should have thought, that the only bills sent to Quarter Sessions are cases where the accused has pleaded guilty at petty sessions. In those cases the Grand Jury have a purely formal duty under the Act of 1920, and I think that it would be of some use if your Lordships were to insert a clause to the effect that where the only cases remitted to Quarter Sessions are cases in which
1028
the accused have pleaded guilty, a Grand Jury be not summoned.
The remaining provisions are very much the same as in the former Bills. Part I deals with the probation of offenders and the statutory effect of it is that each petty sessional division will be required to have available the services of a probation officer. The same officer may be appointed for more than one division and the agent of a voluntary society may be appointed if the justices so desire. The appointment will be made by a probation committee of the magistrates and the cost, so far as it falls upon the public funds, would be shared between the Exchequer and the local authorities. These are very useful proposals which will result in an extension of the probation system, which I am certain is of great value.
The Second Part of the Bill deals with jurisdiction and procedure, and I need only refer to the fact that the First Schedule, and the clause relating thereto, provide that certain offences now triable at Assizes are to be made triable at Quarter Sessions, and that by the Second Schedule, and the clause relating to that Schedule, certain offences now only triable at Quarter Sessions will be able to be dealt with at petty sessions. I think that the adoption of those clauses by Parliament shows that Parliament has continued confidence in the manner in which magistrates carry out their duties. Parts III and IV of the Bill contain certain amendments of the law. I will only refer to Clause 38, which will increase the penalty for drunkenness when in charge of a motor car—a very serious offence—from the present penalty of 40 s., or a month's imprisonment, to a penalty not exceeding £50, or four months. That clause shows the gravity with which the offence is regarded by Parliament. I do not think it is necessary that I should refer to the other clauses. The Bill contains many improvements in the law which have been long asked for and desired, and I am confident that if it is passed into law it will prove to be very useful. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I agree with the description of this Bill given by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and also with his com-

1029
mendation of the Bill to the House. That is not unnatural because, as he has said, this Bill has been through three Parliaments, and it passed substantially as it is now when the late Government was in office. Therefore, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any comments on the Bill in detail. There has, however, been some anxiety in the minds of people with regard to the appointment of probation officers. Clause deals with the matter. I do not doubt that the Government will be careful to give no preference of any sort to any kind of probation officer. Fear arises in this way. The present probation officers are not, properly speaking, officials at all, but are selected by voluntary societies, and they have done admirable work. Some of the most important of the societies are Church of England societies; others belong to other denominations.
This Bill enables proper probation officers to be appointed freely, and I think there is a great deal of advantage to be got by picking out those who have gained experience and who have done their work well from the existing people, although they may be denominational officials. It would never do, however, if it went out that there was any likelihood of preference being given to denominational probation officers in the choice to be made have no doubt that the Government are alive to that. It has been recommended to them from various societies, and I think care will have to be taken that the selection is made of probation officers entirely on their merits and from the point of view which promises to give most advantage to the public concerned. Subject to these remarks I will only say that I think the introduction of the system of probation officers is a great feature in this Bill. It will get rid of a great many sentences of the ordinary kind and save a great many people, particularly children, from being put into gaol. I think also that it will prove effective in reforming incipient criminals and delivering them from the consequences of their vice. With these observations I entirely approve of this Bill.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, there are no doubt many valuable provisions in this Bill, but, unless the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is able to assure us that all the matters have been already passed in this House, I
1030
should ask that we might have an interval before the Committee stage. I would refer to two matters which seem to me of importance and with regard to which, as at present advised, my vote would be against the provisions of the measure. The first matter comes under Clause 11 and Clause 30, and relates to the power of the police to arrest and of the examining magistrate to go through the preliminary stages of the trial of a man at a different place from that in which the offence has been committed.
What would happen to a decent, respectable man, with not very much money, who, being in London on business, found himself charged with a sexual offence supposed to have been committed in Yorkshire, where he ordinarily lives He is arrested in London and tried its London. He wants witnesses and, above all, he needs a lawyer who will examine into the character of the prosecutor. He is bound to have a London solicitor, because the proceedings are conducted in London, and a London solicitor will be quite out of touch with Yorkshire and quite unable to make the necessary investigation. He would have to bring am witnesses, and, I forget whether he would be ultimately repaid, but in the first in stance he would have to pay for the expense of bringing up his witnesses from Yorkshire.
Clause 11 contains a provision that if the magistrate, during the course of the proceedings, thinks that the accused will suffer hardship then he is to surcease, but that may really make all the difference between conviction and acquittal depend upon the discretion of a single examining justice, who may not necessarily be a stipendiary. That might possibly be remedied, as in the case of bail, by giving an appeal to a Judge in Chambers. That might possibly mitigate the hardship of that clause. Clause 30, however, contains no such discretion given to the magistrate of stopping the matter if he thinks the accused is suffering, but it enables the magistrate in the first instance, not merely to try the man at a place where the offence was not committed, but to hale him to a place where he is not.
The Clause says:—
"Where it appears to any justice necessary or expedient, with a view to the better administration of justice, that any person charged with any indictable offence, or with

1031
a summary offence, should be tried jointly with or in the same place as some other person who is charged with an indictable offence or a summary offence, as the case may be, and who is in custody or is being or is to be proceeded against within the jurisdiction of that justice, he may, notwithstanding that the person so charged is not within that jurisdiction, issue a summons or a warrant against him."
That seems to me, again, a case where very great hardship might be inflicted, and where no discretion is given to the justice to surcease. The man is compelled to suffer in this case in a place where he was not and where possibly the offence has not been committed. That is one point which I should like to have further considered and on which, I trust, possibly some concession may be made. I cannot help thinking it may be very hard sometimes upon individuals, and particularly those in humbler circumstances.
The other point touches upon a matter to which the Lord Chancellor referred, and that is the increased jurisdiction given to Quarter Sessions. I confess that I am very averse from any increase of jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions, and especially the kind of jurisdiction proposed to be given under this Bill. I have looked through the cases in the Schedule, and a whole number of them are cases where it is conceivable and possible by law, to give a sentence of penal servitude for life. This matter was laid down by 5 & 6 Victoria, and under that any felony which, when committed by a person not previously convicted of felony, is punishable by transportation beyond the seas for the term of life was removed from the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. One inroad and, as far as I know, only one inroad has been made upon that. The late Lord Bramwell persuaded the Legislature to make burglary triable at Quarter Sessions when it is conceivable that there may be a sentence of penal servitude for life. But that rested upon the ground that the distinction between housebreaking and burglary was so very fine—it depended upon whether it was before a certain hour of the clock or not—that it was silly that there should be different tribunals for the two, and housebreaking, being only punishable with 14 years' penal servitude, was triable at Quarter Sessions.
I do think, with all respect for Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and
1032
Deputy-Chairmen in the Second Court of Quarter Sessions—which, as all lawyers know, is a different position—that it is very doubtful whether in a large number of these cases (I am not speaking of all)—indeed, in all those cases where there is a possible penalty of penal servitude for life, the jurisdiction should not be with Quarter Sessions. Take the case (of all others a case most necessary to try carefully) of arson—arson of crops, 14 years' penal servitude, arson of stacks, penal servitude for life. I venture to think it is very undesirable that that sort of case should go to Quarter Sessions.
Those are the two points on which I wished specially to speak. But I cannot help thinking that Clause 39, as it stands now, is almost comical. It says:
"No person shall—
(a) take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal."
I conceive of some great trial of historical importance and the editor of the Graphic or the Illustrated London News, or some other such paper, sending somebody to make a sketch of the scene at which that great trial takes place. If he does, and if the artist does not put in a blank where the Judge is, and other blanks where the jurors and the witnesses are, he is to be liable to a penalty not exceeding £50. I cannot help thinking that that is almost comic as it stands, and that the clause will require rehandling.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am very glad that attention has been drawn to Clause 11. It was one of the matters to which I wished to draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I should like him to consider—no doubt it has been considered—whether the very wide language of that clause does not really go so far as to enable you to try people in any county in this country for offences committed in another county. If so, that should not be done without express words. The words as they stand seem to me to be very wide. Then there is another point on Clause 28. Your Lordships may recollect that last year this House was good

1033
enough, at my instance, to add to that clause, which deals with penalties against drunken motor-car drivers, a provision that there should be a compulsory suspension of the licence for 12 months. I am still enamoured of that proposal, as the punishment would fit the crime, and when we come to Committee I shall propose to put it down again. I also join in the appeal to the Lord Chancellor not to take the Committee stage till next week, if he can find that convenient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I quite recognise that it is desirable to give sufficient time for noble Lords to consider this Bill and to put down their Amendments, and we do not propose to take the Committee stage before Tuesday next. With regard to what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, these appointments will be made by a Committee of Magistrates. I am quite sure they will be disposed to make appointments on the merits, and we hope they will take that course and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will use the influence which he possesses in that direction. As to what has been said by Lord Phillimore, I would remind him that all the provisions on which he has commented have already twice passed this House. It is rather unfortunate that the comments which he made about taking photographs in Court were not made earlier in the history of the Bill.
The purpose of Clause 11 of the Bill is, of course, to avoid the sending of prisoners about the country from one county to another. It contains a provision to the effect that if hardship is likely to occur then that course shall not be taken. In the original Bill that proviso was limited to cases where undue hardship occurred, but we have made it stronger, so that where any hardship is likely to occur then the magistrate will not proceed. Clause 30 is intended to provide for cases where two persons are chargeable with the same offence which they are said to have committed together, so that the facts to be proved are exactly the same in both cases. In those cases the Bill seeks to provide that one of them may be tried in the same place as the other, so that there shall be one inquiry in the case of both prisoners charged with the same offence. It seems a reasonable pro-
1034
vision, and the clause is guarded by the initial words that this course should only be taken where the magistrate thinks it necessary for the administration of justice. I think that, so guarded, no prejudice is likely to occur. Of course, I will consider what noble Lords have said about these two clauses, and no doubt they themselves will raise the points in Committee. I do not think it can be a fact, as Lord Russell suggested, that Clause 11 will enable anybody to hear a charge in respect of an offence committed wholly outside the country.
As regards the observations made on the First Schedule, that is to say, the proposal that certain offences now triable at Assizes shall be triable at Sessions, I rather regretted to hear the comments of Lord Phillimore, and, as at present advised, I cannot say that I agree with him. I think that the offences scheduled have been very carefully selected, and are just of the same kind as those which now every year go to Quarter Sessions. I believe that the experienced magistrates who sit at Quarter Sessions are quite competent to deal with the offences named in that Schedule, and I hope that, when the time comes, I shall persuade the House to stand by it.
On Motion, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether it is true that on October 17, a lame man, the driver of a lorry belonging to the Daily Herald and carrying newspapers, was compelled to stop by four young men in Fascist uniform, one of whom pointed a revolver at him; that they possessed themselves of the lorry and drove away with it, but were stopped by an accidental collision; that in the proceedings taken against them by the police a charge of larceny was withdrawn; and that no punishment was ever inflicted upon them, except that they were bound over to keep the peace, and that the man with the revolver was fined for having no licence.

1035

2. Whether threatening a man with a deadly weapon is not in itself a criminal offence; and, if so, why the law has not been enforced in this case; and, if not, whether the Government contemplate any amendment of the law; and the like questions in regard to intimidation by numbers.

3. If the facts are as stated, what assurance the Government can give that the liberty and security of peaceful subjects of His Majesty (without distinction of class or party) will be more vigorously protected for the future.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is somewhat late, but I have reason to believe that it will be convenient if I ask my Question now. In the first part of my Question I have set down the facts as I found them reported in a newspaper which I believe is usually reliable in its statements. Assuming those statements to be correct, I am sure your Lordships will agree that they make an unpleasant story, and that the Government will appreciate that it has been the subject of comment in a great many quarters and has aroused some natural wonder as to the real nature of the system by which order and liberty are protected in the country. If there is, as I assume, some simple and satisfactory explanation, I am perfectly sure that the Government will appreciate that it would be a good thing that this explanation should be fully and clearly given.
I do not think I need dwell upon the alleged facts. About six weeks ago it appears that a man was driving a lorry-load of newspapers to Euston station for them to be despatched by train. It is said that the man was lame but that, so far as I know, is in no way material. The newspaper in question was the Daily Herald. None of your Lordships cares in the least what the newspaper was or what opinions it advocated so long as it was lawfully conducted. On his way to the station the lorry driver was held up by four young men who are described as being in Fascist uniform. I do not know what uniform that is, nor do I know to which of the various organisations they belonged, or whether there be any organisation of any great importance whose members distinguish
1036
themselves by this uniform. However, four men, apparently, demanded of the lorry driver that he should stop and get down, and one of them covered him with a revolver. I do not know whether it was a loaded revolver or not; neither can the lorry driver have known. For persuading purposes the revolver was, of course, equally useful whether it was loaded or unloaded. Then they took possession of the lorry. Shortly afterwards they came into some trouble or other. I am told that a large number of newspapers were spilled in the road and that the actual material damage done was a matter of some considerable number of pounds in value because the newspapers, whether through being spilled in the road or through having missed the train, were valueless. That, however, is not a very material point.
Police court proceedings arose out of this affair, and, apparently, these young men were charged, in the first instance, with larceny. That charge was withdrawn, and it is stated that the Magistrate made some comment on the leniency of the course pursued in withdrawing it. Another charge, the precise nature of which I do not know, was preferred and as a result all these young men were bound over to keep the peace. Beyond that, the man who had pointed the revolver was fined £20 for not having a licence to carry a revolver. That appears to have been the whole of the trouble into which these young men were involved in consequence of this rather serious and outrageous escapade.
I want to make a few comments upon that story from the point of view of a person who prefers to keep in mind his own ignorance of the law. In the first place, I can perfectly well conceive that the charge of larceny was very properly withdrawn. It does not appear likely that these young men seized upon that lorry for the sake of any personal enjoyment by themselves and their friends. They were moved, presumably, not by covetousness but by some recondite sense of humour, or some other motive not involving any serious desire to acquire property which was not their own, and if a sensible jury was at all likely to take that view I suppose that the Public Prosecutor was doing his duty in not pressing the charge. It goes without saying that he

1037
did his duty and had good reasons for doing what he did. But from the point of view of ordinary people, surely the possibility of some offence against property is the least part of the matter. What strikes an ordinary man as serious is the unlawful use of force to coerce than man to do what these four young men wished him to do.
To begin with, this man was compelled to desist from his duty by superior numbers. One would have thought that intimidation exercised by superior numbers—and four to one is sufficiently superior—was in itself an offence that could be seriously dealt with by the law. Possibly it is not such an offence. If that is so, I venture to think it is a little unfortunate that, under a special enactment, intimidation exercised by a number of men over an individual to do or not to do a certain thing is capable of being seriously dealt with in a special case if they are engaged in a strike. There may be other cases, and one would earnestly have hoped and wished that there was some law under which the terrorism of numbers was in itself an offence which would be seriously dealt with. I appreciate that this might be a very difficult matter to deal with.
There was, however, a far more serious element in this case. One of these young men—the others, of course, abetting him in this act—appears to have held up the lorry driver and covered him with a revolver, practically compelling him to give up his lorry and desist from his duty under the fear of instant death. Is it really the case in this country that one man may coerce another by a threat of instant death—for that is what it comes to—without committing an offence liable to be dealt with in a much more serious manner than by a fine? Supposing I take the precaution of procuring a licence to carry a revolver, may I, if I feel inclined, go and hold up one of my neighbours and compel him, practically for fear that I should shoot him, to do something that I wish him to do, with the hope of getting off with a mere "bound over to keep the peace," which would have no deterrent effect at all? Those I think to be, as shortly as I can put them, the points which puzzle the ordinary mind about this singular case.
I presume that this curious result arises through some archaicisms in our
1038
laws. I have suggested in my Question that the amendment of the law may be desirable, and I do not mean by that to indicate that this ease has any sudden or immediate emergency requiring instant legislation, or anything of that sort, but I do mean that if it be the case that these young men could not have' been more severely dealt with under the existing laws, that is one of those points of criminal justice which I hope will receive the full attention of those authorities who from time to time bring before Parliament such Bills as that which we have just read a second time. In most cases of offences for outrages it is, of course, a general principle with us all now that, if possible, first offenders shall be lightly dealt with. Here it seems to me that that general principle is quite without the grounds on which it usually rests. There was, in the first place—and I do not see how one can get away from that—the use, for this fiendish purpose, of the fear of death, a fear which it would appear to most of us a man ought in no circumstances, leaving out of account cases of self-defence or the like, to be allowed wantonly, freakishly, to employ without landing himself in for very serious consequences indeed. In this instance it does, I think, make a slight difference that these young men were apparently acting with the pretext, possibly in the sincere belief, that they were upholding some political cause. Clearly here the political tinge of some kind which appears to have come into the ease adds to the desirability that people should be effectively deterred from doing things of that kind.
There are only two remarks that should like to make in conclusion. A large number of people, I understand, and, naturally, young men friends of the Daily Herald, being only human, have been tempted to make a wide use of this rather surprising story, and the kind of suggestion which is put about is this: Oh! if some young men wearing some kind of revolutionary uniform or badge had held up a lorry containing copies of the Morning Post or The Times or some newspaper tainted with capitalism or conservatism, or some other evil tendency, no doubt they would have been dropped on by the authorities very severely. That sort of suggestion has been freely made. To us it is perfectly absurd, but I do want

1039
to point out this, that with the limited knowledge of affairs which vast masses in this country possess it is not to them at all an absurd suggestion. On the contrary, it is one which, to a large number of minds, naturally and inevitably occurs. That being so, it gives a certain importance to this matter which at first sight one might possibly be disposed to regard as a rather small affair.
If persons of extreme political opinions have found that they can turn this occurrence to some propagandist account, I cannot say that that worries me very much. It is rather a wider, perhaps a vaguer, ground which makes me regard this occurrence with some apprehension, and with a desire that there should be some explanation of the exact facts. All your Lordships will sympathise with me when I say that I hate anything which can in the least tend to revive the old feeling that there is in any respect one law for the rich and another for the poor. Quite inevitably, under any condition of society, things will occur which do tend to revive that feeling in poor men's minds, but that is inevitable. Nevertheless it is socially harmful, and it is, I believe, hateful to all of us. Here, of course, I do not suppose that these young men were at all wealthy—they may have been quite the contrary—but in a good many quarters they will be regarded as persons associated in some vague way with the classes that are content with the existing institutions—the respectable and the comfortable classes, interested in upholding things as they are.
I cannot help feeling that occurrences of this kind set a great many poor young men feeling: "Oh, well, these fellows, committing these outrages, got off very lightly: respectable people take an interest in them; but I and my friends should not get off lightly if we did anything of a similar kind." I put that point, I know, rather inadequately. It is a point on which I happen to feel rather sensitive, and I am not ashamed of it. I hope I have not unduly laboured or stressed this incident. I am convinced that a full explanation of it is one for which many people in this country—many people of very different shades of opinion—would be profoundly thankful to the Government. Apologising for having detained your Lordships so long, I beg now to ask the Questions which stand in my name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has put his Questions in very moderate terms, and I am glad to have the opportunity of answering him, especially as this matter has given rise to a good deal of misrepresentation. The facts of the case are very simple. On this night, October 17, a car was being driven from Bouverie Street towards Euston Station with some papers which were to be despatched by train. Two young men, I do not know how they were dressed as I have not had that detail given to me, got in front of the car and the driver very naturally stopped. Thereupon two other young men got on to the car. One of them is said to have pointed something at the driver, but the driver said he could not swear that it was a revolver. The driver got off, and these four young men got into the car and drove off. As luck would have it, they ran the car into some railings, with the result that it was damaged and the papers spread about. The four young men got off and ran away.
The police, of course, made inquiries. They heard that a young fellow had boasted that he was the prime mover in the affair, and thereupon he was arrested and charged with stealing the car and papers. He also declared himself to be a member of a body calling themselves the National Fascisti, whatever that expression may connote. I believe there are two bodies of Fascisti, and that this is one of the two which does not desire to be confused with the other. The police searched the offices of this body, but found nothing at all on which it was possible to proceed. The man was remanded, but before his case came on three other young men came to the police and said that he was innocent, and that they themselves, and a fourth man, had done this thing. It turned out that the first man was boasting, it was mere braggadocio on his part, and that he had nothing whatever to do with it. He was discharged. The fourth man was shortly afterwards arrested, and the four were then charged by the police with larceny.
That having been done, it became the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to look into the matter, and he did so, and having considered all the available evidence, he was satisfied that

1041
probably no magistrate would commit these men on a charge of stealing and certainly no jury would convict them. They said, and apparently said truly, that they objected to the contents of the paper, that they only meant to stop it and cause delay in the circulation of the paper and so hamper its further publication. Taking their own account, that was a very foolish and a very wrong thing to do. But it did seem plain that they had no intention of stealing the car or papers, or depriving the owners of the possession of these things. They only meant to drive the car a little way, I suppose, and leave it. Upon that the Director of Public Prosecutions was satisfied that there was really no evidence of larceny, and he did what was the only fair and right thing to do. He gave directions that the charge of larceny should be withdrawn. The offence was difficult to deal with and he made lip his mind to proceed under an old Statute and take out summonses for an order that these young men should give securities to be of good behaviour in the future. As regards the fourth man, Wilson, he was found to be in possession of a pistol without a permit. He was charged with that at the same time. An order was made by the Magistrate that the four men should find securities to be of good behaviour, and Wilson was fined £20 for being in unlawful possession of the pistol. The three who had given themselves up found securities without difficulty; they were apparently respectable young men, and nothing was known against them. The fourth was not able to find securities or to pay the £20, and as a consequence he was locked up and I believe is still in one of His Majesty's prisons. That is a complete history of the case.
LORD CHARNWOOD: Do I understand that there was no clear evidence that a revolver was used for the purpose of holding up this man?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so. The only statement about a revolver was made by the driver, and he said he could not swear that it was a revolver. That made the matter much more difficult from the, point of view of a prosecution, and that being so no charge could be made out of threatening with a revolver or intimidation. The damage which was done to the car was plainly accidental
1042
damage. Unless it was malicious and wilful you cannot proceed, but, of course, the civil remedy remains. The Director of Public Prosecutions, bearing all these things in mind, considered that no criminal charge could be upheld.
I have only a few comments to make. I am not saying for a moment that these young men are free from blame in what they did. They took a course which was not only foolish but very reprehensible, but I am satisfied that the Director of Public Prosecutions took the right view, that, the charge of larceny could not have been pressed. That being so, it would have been most wrong to proceed with the charge, for a charge which is put forward most solemnly and does not succeed does much harm to the administration of justice. There was no question of leniency. He had no idea of leniency towards these young men. What he desired to do was to take the best course he could in order to bring these young men to justice and to show them that they were breaking the law.
I wish to add that, in consequence of the action which the Director of Public Prosecutions took, some attacks have been made upon him in the public Press which seem to me wholly unjustified. The Director of Public Prosecutions is a most able and most careful public servant. All who have to do with him know perfectly well that he has no desire except that the law shall be justly and impartially administered; and to anybody who has been in contact with him, to any of the noble Lords on either of the Front Benches, I am sure it is perfectly absurd to suggest that he took his action from some other motive. Being a public servant his mouth, of course, is shut, and perhaps that is why some newspapers have taken the courageous action of making attacks upon him which, if made upon anybody else, would probably have been met and have received their just reward. He cannot defend himself against these people who take the course of making these vile and unfounded attacks upon him. I need only say to this House that nobody who knows the Piddle Prosecutor would believe that he is capable of the conduct of which he is so falsely and unfairly accused.
I only add one other observation. The noble Lord asks at the end of his Question what assurance the Government can

1043
give that the liberty and security of peaceful subjects of His Majesty, without distinction of class or party, will be more vigorously protected. To give an assurance of that kind would be to admit that there has been some remissness in the past. I have no such admission to make. I, of course, entirely agree with the noble Lord that justice must be administered without distinction of person, of party or of class. There is no one here who would advocate any other course. I believe that has been the course taken in the past, and particularly in the matter to which the noble Lord has referred, and therefore I am sure he will not ask me to give an assurance in the terms which he suggests. I hope I have given a plain answer to the noble Lord and that after what I have said he will be most anxious to dissociate himself from the unfair charges which have been made by others.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Lord who put this Question down upon the Paper has in so doing rendered a great public service. This is a very serious matter and I propose, with the permission of your Lordships, to speak very plainly about it. There is a very strong feeling in many quarters of the country with regard to this case. Immediately Parliament reassembled Questions concerning it were asked in another place, and if it had not been for the fact that the trial of the Communists was proceeding my colleagues in another place would long before now have pressed for a clay there to debate this case. In view of the Communist trial—I think your Lordships will appreciate what is meant—they decided it was better to wait. The occasion has now come, and, indeed, this particular case has already been the subject of some discussion in another place to-day.
I feel that the issue raised by the noble Lord in this Question is one of the most serious which can engage the attention of Parliament and I am bound to say with every respect but most emphatically that I find the reply of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack extremely inadequate and profoundly disappointing. Surely nothing can be more injurious to the best interests of the country than that large masses of the people should come to feel that the law
1044
is not being impartially administered as between one class and another? And the fact does remain that, because of this case and because of other recent happenings, that view has come to be taken amongst hundreds of thousands of the workers of this country. Criticism in this matter is by no means confined to Labour circles This series of Questions clown upon the Paper in the name of the noble Lord is, in itself, an evidence of that. Weighty articles dealing with this case and with other relevant happenings have appeared in the course of the last few weeks in leading Liberal newspapers and even in leading Unionist newspapers. Therefore the disquietude—and much disquietude has been evinced—is not confined by any means to Labour circles.
The main facts are very well set forth in the Questions of the noble Lord and they were developed by him in a speech of great clearness and of conspicuous moderation. I am afraid I shall not be able to speak quite in the same fashion as he did, because I feel upon these matters extremely strongly and there are some things which I feel it my duty to say quite frankly. I have already indicated that in my view the defence of the Government, not only here to-day but also the defence of the Attorney-General in another place and at the Guildhall, does not at all fully meet the position. What really is the defence of the Government? It comes to this, that the charge of larceny could not, in their opinion, have been sustained, and they seem to think that that ends the matter. Not so. There is a great deal more to be said than that. The Attorney-General, in his speeches and replies to questions dealing with this matter, has, in effect, contended that no criticism of any sort or kind lies against the Public Prosecutor and I rather gather that that also is the contention of the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack. I venture very respectfully to traverse that view.
I do not wish to go into past happenings too much, but certainly as regards the Attorney-General I do feel it necessary to remind your Lordships that two years ago he gave advice to the then Government which proved to be absolutely wrong. He put the Government in the very humiliating position of having to bring in a Bill of Indemnity. Not only so, but certain things were done in con-

1045
nection with that matter, the matter of the Irish deportees, which evoked the criticism, to use no stronger word, of a Lord Justice of Appeal, It is therefore quite clear that, so far as the Attorney-General is concerned, his opinions are not unassailable, and I feel I am entitled, with respect, to traverse the view which he has expressed.
The Government, I think, must try to realise that it is not upon the larceny point that criticism in this Daily Herald case begins and ends. There is a great deal more to be said than that. Quite apart from the question of intimidation by numbers, there is this important matter of the revolver—of threatening with a deadly weapon. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that the driver of the van stated that he could not swear that it was a revolver. According to my information, the driver of the van was terrorised by something which was pointed at him, which he thought was a revolver, and which subsequently proved to be a revolver. In those circumstances it is very difficult for me, as a layman, to believe that some serious offence was not in that act committed, and I think that the reply of the Government on the point is quite inadequate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord said that it subsequently proved to be a revolver. That is not so. There is not the least evidence of that.
LORD ARNOLD: I am informed that one of the men was fined for having a revolver, and according to my information it was the same revolver. I submit that the Public Prosecutor did not make sufficiently close inquiries into this matter, and what we want to know is why was not a more adequate alternative charge preferred. Why, when the larceny charge was withdrawn, was such a comparatively trivial charge as breach of the peace put forward instead? Surely, my Lords, some more serious charge than that could have been preferred and the case sent forward to a jury. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that no question of leniency was ever entertained for a moment. Be it so, but the fact remains that the Magistrate who was trying this case, when the charge of larceny was withdrawn, said to the accused: "I think the Public Prosecutor has been extremely lenient in withdrawing the larceny charge." He later went on
1046
to say: "You have put yourselves in an extremely serious position and if the case had gone on you would have been severely punished." I submit that there is great conflict between those words and the action of the Public Prosecutor in' withdrawing the charge, and in not merely withdrawing the charge but asking simply for penalties which were, in effect, nominal.
I am sorry to say it, but I do say it, that nothing which has been said to-day has to my mind removed the very ugly impression that this case has created. Even if a more serious alternative charge could not have been preferred I think that, in all the circumstances, there might have been more willingness evinced on the part of the Government to reply to one of the Questions of the noble, Lord—to face the position and, if need be, alter the law. No indication of any willingness to do that was evinced. It has been well said that laws must not only be just but that people must think them just, and, rightly or wrongly, large masses of the workers do not believe that, in this case, the law has been fairly administered. That is a serious matter. That feeling, permit me to say, has been strengthened naturally enough—and this has been commented upon not merely on Labour platforms and at street corners, but in some of our most respectable and able journals—by the fact that this Daily Herald case has synchronised more or less with the prosecution of, and sentence upon, the Communists.
I will not discuss that to-day, and I am not expressing the slightest sympathy with Communism, but the workers know, as your Lordships know, that only a few years ago certain highly-placed personages used language with regard to the Army which was scarcely distinguishable, if at all distinguishable, from that for which the Communists have been sent to prison, and yet nothing was done to these highly-placed personages. That is not forgotten and it is contrasted with the treatment meted out to these Communists, who are poor men and not highly placed. That is how the argument is put, and in the circumstances one cannot be surprised. On top of that there is this Daily Herald ease, and I say that it is not surprising, in the circumstances, that it has come about, in the minds of a large number of people, that confidence

1047
in the good name of British justice has been rudely shaken. I repeat that this is a most serious state of things. I will not say anything more, except that, putting it in the most favourable light, it is said that this case has been badly bungled by the Public Prosecutor. I regret very much that the attitude of the Government to-day, and their attitude previously in the Communist case, has done nothing to remove the impression which has been created, that justice is not being fairly administered as between class and class. I say with profound conviction that scarcely anything can be more disastrous than that.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, at the close of his remarks the noble Lord said that the manner in which this case had been managed by the Public Prosecutor was such that belief in justice had been rudely shaken. I submit, with some confidence, that it would have been much more rudely shaken if the Director of Public Prosecutions, having formed, as he had formed, the opinion that this prosecution could not be sustained, had notwithstanding, because of some feeling as to the result on the public mind and in the Press, proceeded with that prosecution. The Public Prosecutor is a public officer who has to do the duty placed before him day by day. He has to deal with many cases of many kinds, and his first duty is to see that in ordering a prosecution he is not acting oppressively. I say that if the Public Prosecutor had proceeded with this prosecution for larceny he would have been guilty of acting oppressively, and I cannot conceive of any man holding his office—I held it for fourteen years—acting otherwise than he did.
For a good many days Lord Charnwood has had on the Paper of this House a Notice which, without using such strong language as was used by the noble Lord who has just spoken, really implies charges and innuendoes against the Public Prosecutor. And though he repudiated the, last paragraph—and I am sure it cannot really be his motive—the paragraph which asks
"What assurance the Government can give that the liberty and security of peaceful subjects of His Majesty (without distinction of class or party) will be more vigorously protected for the future"—
1048
I cannot think that he quite saw the consequences of that language. Could any one read that except as meaning that the Director of Public Prosecutions had not done that which should be done? I confess that when that is printed, and appears on the Paper of the House of Lords for days and days, it does require something to be said to repudiate an innuendo of that kind. My noble friend is a distinguished author. Many of us have read his works. I have, and I notice that when he is writing about a historical character he is careful to verify his references. No one who heard the reply given by the Lord Chancellor could doubt that in this case the noble Lord would not have put some of the statements which he has put on this Paper had he endeavoured to verify his references.
With regard to the revolver, it is not quite so simple as Lord Arnold says. He says: "Oh, he pointed something, and it must have been a revolver." That is not the way in which you prove criminal charges. You must prove something before you can convict a man, and, if I am rightly informed, it does not rest there. Not only was there no evidence sufficient to sustain the charge that he had a revolver in his hand, but there is no evidence, as I am informed, as to which man it was who presented the revolver. Really, the whole evidence of the revolver disappears when you come to look into it. Again I say that the Director of Public Prosecutions in a case like that would be very wrong if he preferred a charge which he knew he could not sustain. I do not think the noble Lord quite realises how serious these things are. When you are in a position of responsibility of that kind you have to take care, as far as lies in your power, not to do injustice, and not to put people on their trial when they ought not to be put on their trial. That is the first obligation and duty. And may I point out that, if there is any suggestion still anywhere—I do not think there is—that the Director of Public Prosecutions was influenced by political feelings, i f he, not believing that there was a case for prosecution, had gone on with it because he was afraid of public opinion, he would have been doing the very thing for which it is now suggested that he should be condemned. I think it is a rash thing to copy a newspaper report and put it down as a Question in the

1049
House of Lords without any inquiry as to its exactitude.
As regards the noble Lord's speech, I have very little to say. The Lord Chancellor has answered that. But I have known Sir Archibald Bodkin all my professional life, and to suggest that he should be influenced by anything except motives of duty—duty to the country, duty to those concerned with the case with which he has to deal—is absurd. I feel it very strongly, and resent any attack being made upon him. He is a public servant, his mouth is closed, and after what has been said elsewhere by the Attorney-General and has been said tonight by the Lord Chancellor—and indeed anyhow—I cannot imagine that any reasonable person who really considers the case impartially will believe that he acted otherwise than properly and absolutely rightly.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, unless I had felt compelled to do so I would not have risen to address your Lordships, as I have already addressed you to-day on another matter. But such attacks have been made upon the Director of Public Prosecutions that I think it would be cowardly of any one who knew him, who knew his reputation, who knew what had been his career, and who knew his qualities, to sit silent and let them go uncontradicted to the world. I hope I am wrong, but, as it seems to me, the noble Lord opposite, Lord Arnold, jumped at this occasion to make some political capital.
Lord Charnwood, who, among other accomplishments, is a barrister, went into this matter, and rather suggested that the law should be altered in some way. I understood the noble Lord to say—and it was pretty clear—that there was no question of larceny in this case. Larceny means the taking of the property of another feloniously with intent to deprive him of his property. What happened here? I have made myself acquainted with the statements of these people—they have been published. There is no evidence at all but the confessions of these people themselves. The only other thing is that the driver of the van containing the newspapers says that some one—he could not say which person—pointed something at him, which might have been a revolver. He said—the Lord Chancellor has mentioned it, but it does
1050
not yet seem to be accepted by the noble Lord opposite—that he could not swear it was a firearm at all, he could not swear what it was.
Lord Charnwood suggested that something might have been done in the way of a charge of threatening. Threatening to do what? I do not know what criminal charge could be brought of that character, simply because someone said: "He pointed something at me which may have been a firearm." But Lord Arnold—I was about to say I was thankful that I should never be tried by him, yet I suppose I might be tried by him as one of my Peers—would apparently proceed in a criminal trial in this way: "The prosecutor says that someone pointed something at him. He cannot say it is a firearm. The defendant is a man who has a firearm." No one proved that he had it, on that night, but he is proved to have had a firearm because he was convicted of having it without a licence. If he had had it with a licence he could not have been convicted of it at all. "And," says the noble Lord—who might try me—"that proves that the man in the dock, who has got a firearm without a licence, pointed that firearm at the man who prosecutes."
LORD ARNOLD: I did not say that it proved it. I said that it seemed to me that in all the circumstances there was a case here for very careful consideration. I quite think a more serious charge could have been preferred, and I certainly think there was a case for a jury. And, even taking the case which the noble and learned Lord has put, many a man has been hanged on less evidence than that.
LORD DARLING: Not by me. What charge could have been preferred? A charge of larceny was preferred. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said there was a case for a jury. Let us see what it was. A charge of larceny was preferred by the police before the Public Prosecutor, Sir Archibald Bodkin, knew anything of the case whatever. It was preferred by the police, who are no more lawyers than some other people are. Having preferred it, they asked the Public Prosecutor to take up the case and, of course, he did his duty. He looked into the facts. The first thing that a responsible man who is prosecuting has to consider is whether there is a case

1051
which it is fair to lay before a jury. The noble Lord opposite says that there was and that he feels that a jury would have convicted. On what evidence would they have convicted? He would have had to get a jury prepared to convict upon no evidence at all—a Russian jury.
What is the evidence of larceny? The only evidence at all is the statement of the young men, and what they said was: "We belong to the Fascisti." I think they are a parcel of idiots to do anything of the kind. They do not know the harm they are doing their country by these idiotic performances. They said that they belonged to the Fascisti. The real Fascisti, the Fascisti of Mussolini, are a very different sort of people. But having said that they belonged to the Fascisti, they went on to say that they had read the Daily Herald, that they did not like it and, therefore, thought it would be a good thing to delay its circulation on that particular day. There were a great many copies of the newspaper in this van. They got hold of the van and they said—this is their own account, there is no evidence but their own, none whatever—"We did not intend to steal it." That would have to go to the jury. It is all a question of intention. If you take property from another it does not follow that you mean to steal it. You may take it with his leave; you may take it for a lark, and you may take it under a claim of right. There has to be a felonious intention to deprive the owner of possession of the property. These young men said: "We did it because we did not like the Daily Herald and we wanted to delay its circulation on that morning. We intended to drive the van away and leave it somewhere with the newspapers." There was no other evidence.
What jury with any regard for their oath could have convicted them upon that evidence? That being all the evidence, I think I can tell the noble Lord what would have happened. The Grand Jury infallibly would have thrown out the bill if they had any regard for their oath, and these people would not have been put upon their trial at all. What else could they have been charged with? It is the sort of behaviour which is very undesirable and is illegal. The Public Prosecutor, who is a very good lawyer, a man of excellent judgment and of no political leanings at all, came to the con-
1052
clusion that under an old Statute which had been used for the prosecution of a person named Lansbury in 1913, there was authority to show that these young men might be proceeded against. So he abandoned the charge which could not have been proved—a charge which had been preferred by the police and not by him—and he proceeded upon a charge which could be proved.
Is it a sign of wickedness and iniquity to start a prosecution and then abandon it? Has it never been done before Does not the noble Lord think that the Public Prosecutor abandoned it because he was satisfied, as anybody who looks at the ease must be satisfied, that a conviction could not be obtained? He took an extreme course—the finding of the case I have mentioned shows the research which he made—and he took a course which resulted in those four young men being bound over with sureties to be of good behaviour. If they do anything contrary to the undertaking they have given they can be brought up without any further trial and can be sent to prison. It is like entering into recognisances. The young man who had a pistol without a licence—not necessarily on that night, that was never proved—somewhere in his pocket or in his room, was fined £20. I heard the noble Lord say something about there being one law for the rich and another for the poor. Well, this young man is not rich enough to pay £20 and he is in gaol now. He was also bound over to be of good behaviour, but he is in gaol. What more can the noble Lord want? If you are in gaol it does not matter much for what offence you are there.
The noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, said that there had been suggestions in this case that a political tinge had been given to it, and I was glad to hear him say that these suggestions are absurd. But they have been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. He said that they are not absurd at all. He is convinced with thousands of others, that there is something political about this case. Had Sir Archibald Bodkin wished to make political capital at the time the Communists were being prosecuted, and had he been a politician, a Machiavelli, is it not obvious that he would have seized upon a person upon the Government side and have prosecuted him for a small

1053
offence?—yes; he would have prosecuted him. Then had anybody said: "You have behaved in a political way," Sir Archibald Bodkin could have replied: "Not at all; I prosecuted this member of the Fascisti"—a friend of the Government, I suppose—"and I am prosecuting the Communists at the same time." What could have been said? A man who had the slightest political leanings would have done that. But that is exactly what Sir Archibald Bodkin did not do.
I am sorry to mention the matter, but it has been dragged into this discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in his attack, to which I shall have to allude. The Public Prosecutor prosecuted the Communists. The Communists were convicted by a jury of their countrymen and were sent to gaol. I wonder, and I have been wondering for some time, what noble Lords and others think about interfering in this Communist case at the present moment. Do they know that those men have ten days in which to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal if there is anything wrong about their conviction or sentence? Do they know that hardly a person is convicted nowadays who does not appeal to that Court? Is it decent or proper to indulge, here or anywhere else, in comments and attacks upon that case, when words that are said by awkward people, or by people replying to awkward people, may prejudice the case which those men may have yet to bring before the Court of Criminal Appeal?
LORD ARNOLD: May I with great respect ask the noble Lord this? Is it not the ease that this matter has been commented upon by nearly every newspaper in the country, and has it not been previously ruled that after a case has been tried before a jury and a verdict given, though an appeal may be pending, the verdict may be the subject of comment, because the appeal will be heard before Judges? Has not that been the rule?
LORD DARLING: Yes, it might not be a contempt of court to discuss the Communist case, or to write a leading article about it—it would not necessarily be a contempt of court—and the reason is that the Judges are less liable to be influenced by what is in the newspapers than would be people who serve on juries. But you may do a great deal of
1054
harm without committing contempt of court. You can do a great deal of harm to people who may appeal without rendering yourself liable to be committed to prison for contempt of court. I myself have regretted to find that this ca-se has been enlarged by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Arnold) into an attack upon the Attorney-General. What has the Attorney-General to do with this case? The noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, brought forward a definite case, in which he represented that an explanation was required. That case had nothing to do with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-Genera did not know what Sir Archibald Bodkin was going to do in that case. He only knew of it after he had been talking to Sir Archibald Bodkin upon some other legal business. Sir Archibald Bodkin, after consulting the Attorney-Genera upon another matter, merely mentioned what he had done in this particular ease. Why then bring the Attorney-General into this case? He had nothing to do with it. Why bring in the Communists?
I cannot help repeating what I said almost at the beginning, that I cannot but think that this case has been treated so differently by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, from the manner in which it was treated by the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, because it seemed to present a very good opportunity to drag into this case another case in which the people concerned were tried upon a quite different charge, at a different place, and prosecuted by a different person, the Attorney-General, and because it was supposed, I hope mistakenly supposed, to present an opportunity to those sadly in want of some better political capital of making something out of it.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence for one moment while I reply on a personal point that was made by my noble friend opposite, Lord Desart? My noble friend remarked that I had done some injustice to the Public Prosecutor by allowing a Question, in certain terms, to be on the Notice Paper of this House for fourteen days. I intended no injustice. I conceive with a little difficulty where my noble friend's quarrel with my words arises. For fourteen days he has had this Notice before him, and I have had the pleasure

1055
of meeting him and others of your Lordships during that time, and he might have pointed out to me that he considered that I was doing some injustice to a responsible public official. I intended none. May I explain this? It was a point of complaint on the part of my noble friend that I had set something down without attempting personally to inquire into the facts. The facts which I have put down I took from the newspapers. I set down a report which has been put about this country, and widely believed, and I put it clown in the form in which I believed it was being circulated, because I thought to put the matter in that way was necessary in the public interest. Having done so, I confess that I feel I have nothing for which to apologise.
THE EARL OF DESART: I hope I may say that I did not really mean the comment to be so serious as my noble friend seems to regard it, but I did think that it was unfortunate that the words should have been on the Notice Paper.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I would not venture to rise at this late hour were it not that I wish to say that those of us on these Benches do not accept the modification of the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood. Those on the other side of the House who have attempted to defend what took place, have tried to make out that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, was making a personal attack on the character of Sir Archibald Bodkin. Perhaps I may make it quite clear that we are not concerned with personalities. What really concerns us is that none of the noble Lords on the other side of the House who have spoken have really attempted to touch on what we consider to be the real issue. What we wanted to know from the learned Lord Chancellor was, could there
1056
not have been another charge? He did not tell us that. What I venture to suggest to your Lordships will cause very much more consternation to constitutionalists all over the country is that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would not admit that there had been any remissness at all. Indeed, he seemed to think that there is no way in which it is possible under the existing law to deal with men who hold up people by threats of violence because they regard that as a perfectly legitimate piece of propaganda.
Nothing that has been said from the other side of the House has in our opinion in any way touched on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, made, as to what is being said about this ease in the country, and, from the case that has been made out by the Government, rightly said—namely, that whereas Communists are being imprisoned for suggesting that the Constitution is not sufficient for the proper government of this country, and that they are willing to resort to force—those are their opinions and not the opinions of the Labour Party—that whereas they are being imprisoned for that reason, you have a body known as the National Fascisti, whose members are only bound over for actually resorting to force. Nothing has been said to-night that is going to allay the consternation about the way in which justice has miscarried on this occasion, and for that reason I feel that it is only right that we on these Benches should make it quite clear that we cannot see any reason for the suggestions in the noble Lord's Question being in any way modified.
House adjourned at ten minutes before o'clock.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Urban District Council of Audley:
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Urban District Council of Bollington:
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Urban District Council of Sidmouth:
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Tamworth Gaslight and Coke Company:
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Worthing Gas Light and Coke Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
Special Order in respect of the rural districts of Aylesbury and Long Crendon and part of the rural district of Wycombe, in the County of Buckingham, the urban district of Thame and part of the rural district of Thame, in the County of Oxford, and the urban district of Tring and part of the rural district of Berkhamsted, in the County of Hertford:
Special Order in respect of the parishes of Witton and Livesey, in the rural district of Blackburn, in the County of Lancaster:
Special Order in respect of the Burgh of Helensburgh, in the County of Dumbarton:
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Leyland, in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Special Order in respect of the Burgh of North Berwick, in the County of East Lothian:
Special Order for the Amendment of the Pontypool Electric Lighting Order, 1895:
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Bath and Frome, in the County of Somerset.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.